|FL||Member in Good Standing||2013||01/29/2017|
|Award name||Grantor||Date granted|
|Leadership Achievment Award||Thomas M. Cooley Law School||2011|
|Dawn C. Beachnau||Thomas M. Cooley Law Review||2011|
|Associate||Groelle & Salmon, Pa||2015 - Present|
|Associate||The Baez Law Firm, PC||2014 - 2014|
|Associate||The Law Office of Ameen & Shafii||2013 - 2013|
|Thomas M. Cooley Law School||General Practice||JD - Juris Doctor||2012|
|Queens College||N/A||B. A.||2004|
Posted by Irene Milman
Ms. Echeverry took my case against a former employer for wrongful termination. I paid her a $300 non-refundable retainer with an additional $35 a month 'maintenance fee' for 4 months. Our contract entitled her to 40% of any money recovered in addition to this. After several attorneys declined the case, I was happy that someone had agreed to take it. I know that lawyers cannot guarantee results, but the case manager for Spielberger Law Group told me that Ms. Echeverry believed we had a very strong case. After about 4 months, Ms. Echeverry indicated that she intended to begin negotiations and recommended that we ask for no less than $25k. Well, she was not able to recover anything at all. If it were such a great case and she obtained zero recovery, then she is not a strong attorney. My hunch is that she took the case to get more experience, but not necessarily because she believed we would win.
Having reviewed the demand letter she sent to the defendant and the defendant's response, I could see that the other attorney was much more tough. Our demand letter contained very little substance and mostly was just an extensive passage from a law book regarding employer discrimination, but even to an untrained eye it was clear that she did not have a strong position and the other attorney completely annihilated her demands. I realize that my $450 paid for the time she spent on this case and she lost nothing, but for me it was a significant amount of money to waste on an experiment. Her assistants were also very strange - both of them had absolutely refused to address me by name in all their communications, as in 'Good afternoon, Ms. Smith'. This is Ms. Escheverry was pleasant when we spoke on the phone but wish that she had been more honest with me about the case.