Constance Joanna Christie

It is unfortunate we did not see these reviews BEFORE hiring Constance Christie because if we had, we would have NOT hired her. This is the first time we have ever experienced such bad legal representation. Rule 1.4 (Communication): 1. Prompt Communication: A lawyer must promptly inform the cli...ent of any decisions or circumstances that require the client's informed consent. A. Constance Christie FAILED to inform us or obtain our prior approval in taking $10000 from the IOLA account held in our benefit B. Constance Christie FAILED to prepare and send us a CLOSING STATEMENT prior to the closing for our approval and signature. And only sent the closing statement days after the closing. 2. Reasonable Updates: The lawyer must keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter. A. Constance Christie FAILED to return phone calls and email messages sent directly to her requesting she contact us. NOT once have we been able to speak with Constance Christie on the phone about our legal rights under the contract since we hired her. 3. Responding to Client Requests: Lawyers are required to respond to client inquiries and requests for information in a reasonable time frame. A. Constance Christie intentionally FAILED to return our numerous phone calls and emails to her to inform us of our legal rights and discuss the terms of the contract. B. Constance Christie FAILED to communicate with us during the proceedings. Never once did she call us or answer our email requests. C. Because of Constance Christie intentional failure to respond to our requests, we were forced eviction. 4. Explain Matters Clearly: A lawyer must explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about their representation. A. Constance Christie never contacted us directly as we requested to discuss with us our legal rights under the sales contract. CONCLUSION Constance Christie provided us with inadequate legal representation and the above facts proves that she lacks integrity and ethical responsibility because her bad faith behavior is in clear violation of New York Rules of Professional Conduct specifically Rule 1.4. And upon information and belief, her behavior appears to be affecting other clients.