Complaint Review: Sumpter And Gonzalez Law - Austin Texas

I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY. I DO NOT KNOW THESE ATTORNEYS NOR HAVE I UTILILZED THEIR SERVICES.

I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

WHY DID YOU NOT TRY TO RESOLVE YOUR FINANCIAL PROBLEMS WHILE YOU WERE STILL IN THE MARINES --I UNDERSTAND THE CHAPLAIN MIGHT HAVE REFERRED YOU TO AN AGENCY ON BASE THAT COULD HAVE HELPED YOU.

AND DID YOU CHECK YOUR FINANCIAL SITUATION OVER WITH A CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT IN PRIVATE PRACTICE TO MAKE SURE YOU HAD ENOUGH OF A FINANCIAL PROBLEM TO CONSULT WITH AN ATTORNEY?

AND DID YOU CONTACT THE TEXAS BAR ASSOCIATION TO MAKE SURE THESE ATTORNEYS WERE BOARD-CERTIFIED SPECIALISTS IN BANKRUPTCY LAW?

IT SOUNDS RATHER BAD THAT THEY WOULD TERMINATE A PREGNANT ATTORNEY WITHOUT MAKING ARRANGEMENTS WITH HER CLIENTS FOR ALTERNATIVE COUNSEL TO TAKE HER CASELOAD....THAT PART IS QUESTIONABLE AT BEST, AT LEAST AS I UNDERSTAND IT FROM WHAT YOU SAY.

WHEN AN ATTORNEY AGREES TO REPRESENT YOU FOR FREE, IT IS CALLED PRO BONO AND TOO MUCH PRO BONO WILL PUT A LAW FIRM OUT OF BUSINESS. THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE TO CHARGE A RETAINER FEE WHEN THEY AGREE TO TAKE YOUR CASE --THAT IS A NON-REFUNDABLE AMOUNT THAT THEY WILL SPEND FOR LEGAL RESEARCH TO DETERMINE HOW BEST TO HANDLE YOUR CASE...

ATTORNEYS TEND TO BE LIKE FIREARMS --NEVER USE THEM UNLESS YOU NEED THEM AND THEY ARE EXPENSIVE! VERY.

SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THEY CHARGED YOU A CONSULTING FEE WHICH MEANS THEY CHARGED YOU FOR THE INITIAL CONSULTATION AND RESEARCH. THAT IS SIMILIAR TO A RETAINER BUT I AM NOT SPLITTING HAIRS. IT IS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNETHICAL.

IT ALSO SOUNDS TO ME LIKE YOU DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH DEBT TO BOTHER THESE PEOPLE AND CERTAINLY DID NOT NEED TO FILE BANKRUPTCY. YOU COULD HAVE WRITTEN YOUR OWN LETTERS TO THE CREDITORS AND OFFERED TO SETTLE WITH THEM  DIRECTLY BY SETTING UP A PAYMENT PLAN AND YOU COULD HAVE DONE IT YOURSELF WITHOUT AN ATTORNEY!

LIKE I SAID, I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY AND HAVE NO EXPERIENCE IN BANKRUPTCY LAW.
BUT I THINK THEY TREATED YOU OK.

While we have some doubts about the authenticity of this report, as it came within 24 hours of an ex-employee being terminated for unethical behavior, we'd be happy to clarify some of the statements this alleged "former client" has made:

1. Certain client contracts we've used have had a minimum flat fee with the possibility of escalation. In those cases, every client was well aware and had a printed copy that could clarify what fee arrangement was. We have never "add[ed] more to the original amount" in any case where the client hadn't agreed to that arrangement in advance of signing the contract. This is not our standard contract, and has only ever been used to offer clients the lowest possible base fee.

2. It's not our policy to add late fees to anyone's payments, ever.

3. We did let go of an attorney, and allow her to take some of her cases when she left. In those cases, we did not continue billing the clients who she took with her; in fact, we refunded them their money so that they could apply them to the fees they owed her. Were baffled by this comment, and if this is actually a former client, and what he or she describes actually occurred, wed encourage this person to contact us so that we can make it right.

4. Our social work staff absolutely never breaches confidentiality under any circumstance, period. Were extremely diligent about this and take our responsibility to our clients very seriously. Our staff includes LMSW-level full-time social workers, graduate-level student interns, and doctoral candidates none of whom have invested the time and resources required to pursue these credentials in order to have better lunchtime gossip material. This comment is flat-out untrue. Were very proud of our social work program and operate it with complete integrity. And we dont charge an extra $1,000 for those services.