I am very dissatisfied with your firm's handling of my case…read more
1. Initially, we discussed the primary issue I wanted the Judge to be aware of: the arbitrator failed to consider the VOID document, in which MI and I agreed that all silicone in the bathrooms would be redone before purchasing the home. This task was never completed, leading to the initial lawsuit. MI made an agreement and signed it merely to close the deal, then reneged on it. Subsequently, the initial lawyer, in the first case, requested a third-party inspection to avoid a "my word vs. MI" scenario. However, all discussions, as reflected in the New Judge's decision remarks, only addressed the quality of work, without mentioning the violation of a contractual obligation.
2. Your firm has had three different attorneys on this case. Initially, communication was consistent. After months of accepting my payments, your firm failed to address the prolonged duration of the case, with no follow-ups with the courts- UNTIL I called in early January to inquire about the status. At that point, you filed to determine where the case stands. When the courts provided a timeline, which was missed, your newest member handling my case, Rachel, filed a new document. Please see the email below detailing her negligence and unprofessional decision. I trusted your law firm, only to have a lawyer later tell me, "Yeah, wasn't effective to submit that."
...After giving it another two weeks, your firm did nothing but sit on my account and receive my money. I called the courts and was informed there was a glitch and they are backdated. Had your attorney(s) approached my case with passion and understanding, considering it has been ongoing for three years with over $40K spent, I would have fewer complaints about my experience with your firm and this loss.
Currently, I am seeking another firm to handle my case. You are the second firm that has listened to me, agreed with me in the beginning-and then failed to include the information I requested in the narrative presented to the judge or listening officials. This portrayal presented to the judge focused solely on our "dissatisfaction with the quality of work", rather than highlighting the fact that MI rushed to sign a punch list with agreed corrections to be made, then refused to complete these corrections. After two attempts with inattentive lawyers and their legal jargon, the point was missed yet again, leaving me in a worse position than when I started.