Dennis Marston Slate

Dennis Slate

It is interesting when a supposed former client posts a review like this anonymously. The issues presented in this review are of such a general nature and do not match any prior fact patterns I have had with a former client, so it leads me to believe this must have been written by an opposing party or someone with an axe to grind. Avvo's review policy is such that there is not really a way for me to challenge this "review: and force the person to prove what he/ she is saying, so I am left to respond here in this manner. I think my prior reviews speak for the type of service me and my office staff provide, which I believe is far different than the picture this "reviewer" is trying to paint. If this were a real "review", then I respond by saying I disagree with it. I would point out these issues & ask the following questions: First, there is no such thing as a modification of custody case that poses no problems. I would never tell that to a potential client, because it would require me to predict the future about an issue that is decided by humans(judges) and who have very few hard rules to guide them. That is an inherently unpredictable situation, and therefore not something I would ever say will "pose no problems." Second, what simple questions were not answered? When and in what format were they asked? Third, about not returning phone calls, why would I do that? I only have one thing to sell, and that is my time. If a client has a question that they need answered by me, I am more than willing to call them, email them, or write them a letter. The clients are happy to get the response, and I get to sell my product, so we are both happy. Fourth, who gave misleading information? How many occasions did someone mislead you? Do you think they did it purposeful? Was it ever corrected? Did you call or say anything to anyone? When you say nothing was done, meaning nothing on the case what so ever, or that papers had not been served? What did you feel was supposed to getting done on the modification case, that was not being done? Fifth, the retainer was a waste of money. A retainer is only paid as an advance of potential legal fees. Earlier the complaint was that not enough work was being done, which would have used up more of the retainer, but here this is saying that money that was used was wasted? How can those things both be true? Sixth, returning the case file is required by a lawyer to a client that has ended representation. I have never withheld a client file that has been requested by a former client. I retain client files for 5 years after a case is finished. There are severe consequences for a lawyer that does not return a client file to a client that requests one, so I definitely would have done so if it had been requested. This is just a plain falsity in this "review." Seventh, I do not provide monthly invoices, this is true. It is clearly spelled out in my contract that I do not provide them, but that any time a client wants to see their ledger with my office, we will provide one upon request. If you never saw an invoice, how do you know the retainer was wasted as you stated before? Eighth, before a refund is processed, I have to account for all time and outside contractor costs from my process server, or other service providers. I have a billing person that handles this for me, and the refunds are processed at the end of the next billing cycle each month. I have only ever had one previous client complain about this issue before, and that person had given me the wrong address to send the check. We had sent it out timely, but their error caused the check to be returned to me, while they complained. I think they had to have felt a little silly when they got the the check and we showed them it was sent to the address they provided, as I know I would have. Other than that time, I have not been made aware of any other complaints. For all these reasons, I do dispute the validity of this "review."