I retained F. Douglas Hartnett to represent me in an EEO hearing. I delivered my EEO investigation report and he participated in vetting of an arbitrator. Several months later (approximately two to three) he informed me I needed to pay his retainer. I delivered it while in intense physical pain and i...n an orthopedic boot. That's when things started going downhill. When I would call to check in with him, I either got a receptionist or his machine. I would leave messages, but did not get a call back. It finally came down to me having to "catch" him in his office. I expressed my disappointment that did not return my calls, and he claimed he had "nothing to report." I then requested, as long lapses of time were going by, to at least let me know. It got worse when he repeatedly asked the name of the attorney representing my employer. Although he admitted he "should be more responsive" the non-return of phone calls continued. Finally, things began to move, and we had a pre-hearing scheduling phone conference with the attorney and selected arbitrator. At that time, I requested to meet with him prior as I was uncomfortable with his lack of familiarity with the issues of my case. At that phone conference, which I came to 1/2 an hour earlier, but waited an additional 15 minutes in the waiting room, when he announced that he had to "pee." Noting how unprofessional this pronouncement was to the receptionist, I awaited his return. He then began asking me questions such as "what is the statute of limitations," and "who are their witnesses." At this point, I had paid a hefty retainer and consultation fee. As the conversation went on, it became evident he was completely unfamiliar with the issues of my case, despite having had the report for at least 7 months. I am sure he sensed my discomfort, and as I left, he called me back to the conference room to inform me that the retainer and consultation fee "would not be sufficient" to cover a one-day hearing of 8 hours or less. I immediately left with the intention of discontinuing his services. I also inquired if he really thought he had done sufficient work to request additional fees as I didn't see what he had done for the money already paid. He agreed, and when I reviewed his contract, it mentioned that regardless of the status of the case, he would stop working until additional funds were paid. I terminated him via email, and then as his agreement stated, by certified mail. I only received half of the retainer back, although I do not think his work warranted keeping the other half. I then had to seek new counsel. His work was shoddy at best, and I received better advice and counsel for a fraction of his consultation fee, resulting in a satisfactory resolution from alternate counsel.

Even when I wrote FOIA requests (and other letters) *for* him to submit on my behalf, Hartnett did not submit until *months* later, then to incorrect fax number without bothering to confirm receipt. It was not until after *weeks* of repeated requests that he *finally* shared with me the FOIA request... that he thought he had submitted -- but which he had *not* actually proofread (still contained comment/question explicitly directed to him). This is but one factual example of why I can *not* describe his services as satisfactory, timely, professional, or competent. Nonetheless, Hartnett demanded full payment and actually threatened to sue me.