Complaint Review: Daniel J. Smith - Wagner Falconer & Judd - Pre-Paid Legal Services - Ada, Oklahoma & Minneapolis, Minnesota Oklahoma

Lets just assume that you are right about it a contract since it has basically nothing to do with his arguement. His arguement is about breach of agreement or contract or whatever and that Pre-Paid Legal cancelled his agreement. Well, in the agreement as well as any type of service...INCLUDING CAR INSURANCE...a company always reserves the right to terminate an agreement at any time as well. In addition, his agreement was most likely cancelled because he threatened legal action against the provider attorney and by doing so, it automatically cancels. That's also in the agreement. All of which is still pointless to discuss because he obviously no longer wanted Pre-Paid Legal Services, so he got what he wanted. He no longer is paying for the service. His problem was that he's forgetting that that is a real law firm and if you slander any law firm, you can go ahead and expect a lawsuit. Some people in life makes things more difficult than what they really are. If he wants to sue the law firm, its his right and he can go ahead and hire an attorney to do so. Its a free country

Lets just assume that you are right about it a contract since it has basically nothing to do with his arguement. His arguement is about breach of agreement or contract or whatever and that Pre-Paid Legal cancelled his agreement. Well, in the agreement as well as any type of service...INCLUDING CAR INSURANCE...a company always reserves the right to terminate an agreement at any time as well. In addition, his agreement was most likely cancelled because he threatened legal action against the provider attorney and by doing so, it automatically cancels. That's also in the agreement. All of which is still pointless to discuss because he obviously no longer wanted Pre-Paid Legal Services, so he got what he wanted. He no longer is paying for the service. His problem was that he's forgetting that that is a real law firm and if you slander any law firm, you can go ahead and expect a lawsuit. Some people in life makes things more difficult than what they really are. If he wants to sue the law firm, its his right and he can go ahead and hire an attorney to do so. Its a free country

Lets just assume that you are right about it a contract since it has basically nothing to do with his arguement. His arguement is about breach of agreement or contract or whatever and that Pre-Paid Legal cancelled his agreement. Well, in the agreement as well as any type of service...INCLUDING CAR INSURANCE...a company always reserves the right to terminate an agreement at any time as well. In addition, his agreement was most likely cancelled because he threatened legal action against the provider attorney and by doing so, it automatically cancels. That's also in the agreement. All of which is still pointless to discuss because he obviously no longer wanted Pre-Paid Legal Services, so he got what he wanted. He no longer is paying for the service. His problem was that he's forgetting that that is a real law firm and if you slander any law firm, you can go ahead and expect a lawsuit. Some people in life makes things more difficult than what they really are. If he wants to sue the law firm, its his right and he can go ahead and hire an attorney to do so. Its a free country

I can cancel my car insurance too. Does that mean it's not a contract? Melvin, you have no idea what you're talking about. A Pre-Paid Legal membership is a contract, and breach of that contract creates legal liability. Ask someone from the company - and I mean an EMPLOYEE, not another one of you brainless MLM drones - and they'll tell you the same thing.

I could care less about your B score in contracts as there is no point in your comments nor is it relevent to this person's issue No customer is bound and gagged to anything whatsoever in signing up for Pre-Paid Legal. That's it, there's no other arguement to this otherwise. Don't like Pre-Paid Legal. cancel it. Nothing will happen to you afterwards.

The existence of a cancellation right has nothing to do with whether or not the "membership agreement" is or isn't a contract. Answer the following questions for me, if you would: 1. Is the client solicited and offered PPL services in exchange for a monthly fee? 2. Can you get PPL services without accepting this offer by entering into the membership agreement? 3. Is there an exchange of value on both sides (i.e. PPL's receipt of the consumer's payment, and the consumer's right to use PPL services)? 4. If the client pays for the services, is PPL obligated to provide them? And if PPL provides the services, is the client obliged to pay for them? 5. Assuming that one side meets its terms of the agreement, does the other side generally have some valid legal reason for not meeting its end of the agreement? 6. If one side meets its terms of the agreement, but the other does not, does the first party have the right to pursue legal remedies against the second party? If the answer to each of these questions, except for question "5", is "yes," then you have a contract. I may have only gotten a "B" in my contracts course, but I wouldn't have even done that well if I couldn't recognize a contract in the first place.

There is no obligation to maintain service with Pre-Paid Legal. It can be cancelled anytime by calling the number for customer service. And the wait time is generally only a few minutes, a little more busy around noon due to lunch but other than that, you can make a call and cancel or contact your bank as well. Again, its not a contract at all. Its also unfair for you to say that the attorney caused a "gun toting felon" to make threats. Based on what you said, you situation was already bad as far as the threats are concerned. Even if that was the case, under the Samaritan Act, you can't sue someone for trying to help you out. And if I were you, I would go ahead and obtain an attorney if you are going to continue your crusade. If that Provider Firm has already threatened to sue you, I would take it very seriously. Most attorneys would have sued you already. You are slandering the attorney and basically accusing him of malpractice. Do you think they are going to let you do that? Start thinking about your comments. If you want to file a complaint against an attorney, go through the proper channels such as the Attorney General or the BBB

Statement from Melvin's rebuttal: "I'm going to make this quick. First off, the PPL agreements and ID theft are not contracts but they are memberships." Melvin, my dear frend, an agreement IS a contract, at least in most cases. They are virtually synonomous. The only difference between an "agreement" and a "contract" is that a contract is in compliance with the law and is therefore enforceable in a court of law. If you are trying to say that the PPL membership "agreement" is not a "contract," then what you are saying is that neither party is bound by the terms contained therein. If such is the case, then PPL was not abliged to provide ANY services to the Reporter, and the Reporter was not obliged to pay ANYTHING to PPL. Is that really what you are trying to convey? I would think the answer to the preceeding question is "no." As such, PPL, and the provider attorney, who provides the services under the CONTRACT, were bound by the terms of the CONTRACT. The Reporter provided a pretty subtsantial claim of a violation of said contract. Per the terms of the contract, the attorney was required to REVIEW the case and act accordingly, in compliance with the contract itself and the professional ethical rules by which he was bound. In this case, the attorney sent a letter to the client's landlord that did not reflect the desires of his client. This is not only an ethical violation, but also is likely a violation of the PPL contract. As such, the Reporter should consult with an outside attorney to see what options may be available to him regarding legal malpractice AND breach of contract with your company. Further, are you sure you should be marketing legal insurance, much less ANY insurance, if you don't know what a contract is?

Statement from Melvin's rebuttal: "I'm going to make this quick. First off, the PPL agreements and ID theft are not contracts but they are memberships." Melvin, my dear frend, an agreement IS a contract, at least in most cases. They are virtually synonomous. The only difference between an "agreement" and a "contract" is that a contract is in compliance with the law and is therefore enforceable in a court of law. If you are trying to say that the PPL membership "agreement" is not a "contract," then what you are saying is that neither party is bound by the terms contained therein. If such is the case, then PPL was not abliged to provide ANY services to the Reporter, and the Reporter was not obliged to pay ANYTHING to PPL. Is that really what you are trying to convey? I would think the answer to the preceeding question is "no." As such, PPL, and the provider attorney, who provides the services under the CONTRACT, were bound by the terms of the CONTRACT. The Reporter provided a pretty subtsantial claim of a violation of said contract. Per the terms of the contract, the attorney was required to REVIEW the case and act accordingly, in compliance with the contract itself and the professional ethical rules by which he was bound. In this case, the attorney sent a letter to the client's landlord that did not reflect the desires of his client. This is not only an ethical violation, but also is likely a violation of the PPL contract. As such, the Reporter should consult with an outside attorney to see what options may be available to him regarding legal malpractice AND breach of contract with your company. Further, are you sure you should be marketing legal insurance, much less ANY insurance, if you don't know what a contract is?

Statement from Melvin's rebuttal: "I'm going to make this quick. First off, the PPL agreements and ID theft are not contracts but they are memberships." Melvin, my dear frend, an agreement IS a contract, at least in most cases. They are virtually synonomous. The only difference between an "agreement" and a "contract" is that a contract is in compliance with the law and is therefore enforceable in a court of law. If you are trying to say that the PPL membership "agreement" is not a "contract," then what you are saying is that neither party is bound by the terms contained therein. If such is the case, then PPL was not abliged to provide ANY services to the Reporter, and the Reporter was not obliged to pay ANYTHING to PPL. Is that really what you are trying to convey? I would think the answer to the preceeding question is "no." As such, PPL, and the provider attorney, who provides the services under the CONTRACT, were bound by the terms of the CONTRACT. The Reporter provided a pretty subtsantial claim of a violation of said contract. Per the terms of the contract, the attorney was required to REVIEW the case and act accordingly, in compliance with the contract itself and the professional ethical rules by which he was bound. In this case, the attorney sent a letter to the client's landlord that did not reflect the desires of his client. This is not only an ethical violation, but also is likely a violation of the PPL contract. As such, the Reporter should consult with an outside attorney to see what options may be available to him regarding legal malpractice AND breach of contract with your company. Further, are you sure you should be marketing legal insurance, much less ANY insurance, if you don't know what a contract is?

Statement from Melvin's rebuttal: "I'm going to make this quick. First off, the PPL agreements and ID theft are not contracts but they are memberships." Melvin, my dear frend, an agreement IS a contract, at least in most cases. They are virtually synonomous. The only difference between an "agreement" and a "contract" is that a contract is in compliance with the law and is therefore enforceable in a court of law. If you are trying to say that the PPL membership "agreement" is not a "contract," then what you are saying is that neither party is bound by the terms contained therein. If such is the case, then PPL was not abliged to provide ANY services to the Reporter, and the Reporter was not obliged to pay ANYTHING to PPL. Is that really what you are trying to convey? I would think the answer to the preceeding question is "no." As such, PPL, and the provider attorney, who provides the services under the CONTRACT, were bound by the terms of the CONTRACT. The Reporter provided a pretty subtsantial claim of a violation of said contract. Per the terms of the contract, the attorney was required to REVIEW the case and act accordingly, in compliance with the contract itself and the professional ethical rules by which he was bound. In this case, the attorney sent a letter to the client's landlord that did not reflect the desires of his client. This is not only an ethical violation, but also is likely a violation of the PPL contract. As such, the Reporter should consult with an outside attorney to see what options may be available to him regarding legal malpractice AND breach of contract with your company. Further, are you sure you should be marketing legal insurance, much less ANY insurance, if you don't know what a contract is?

I'm going to make this quick. First off, the PPL agreements and ID theft are not contracts but they are memberships. Your membership starts the following day if it was Next Day Air and if there was a problem you could cancel both plans and have your money returned within 14 days. Even if PPl wouldn't cancel it out with I would seriously doubt, you can go to your bank or cc provider depending on the payment methods and put stop payments for Pre-Paid Legal. Only problem with your story is that you apparantly did use the service for Title 1, Preventive Legal Services. If you are being threatened by a "gun-shooting" felon then you should have called the police first then contacted the attorney. Basically, the attorney reviewed the issue and send a letter for return of your funds. If you didn't relay the threats to him, then that is not his fault. It is your responsibility to provide complete information directly if there have then threats made. I'm sorry if you are upset but you can't blame a pre-existing issue of a gun toting felon on any attorney for that matter. And you are slandering the attorney and the provider firm, what did you think would happen. Most attorneys would have already sued you already. If you wish to proceed with this matter and its your right to do so, then you need to hire an attorney. The way you are going about this is only going to get worse for you.