Chad Conelly

Chad Conelly

I am sorry, and surprised, to read how this reviewer feels about his experience with my firm. We achieved a fantastic outcome for the client in a complicated legal matter, settling under favorable terms in a short time and at a minimum of cost. Unfortunately, this reviewer badly misstates our discussions about litigation cost estimates, which we discussed before the client hired my firm and during the representation. This client hired my firm after another prominent firm’s representation was terminated. The client needed representation and quick assistance on a complicated legal issue in ongoing litigation since his prior attorney withdrew. Before hiring me, a director of the company asked me to provide the estimated cost to draft and file a specific legal brief. Since I had not even received the case files, I provided an estimate but I clarified it was only a rough estimate – without having the case files or the ability to analyze the specific legal issues, I explained it was impossible to provide a good estimate, informed him the cost could ultimately be higher than the rough estimate, and told him I’d be happy to provide a more specific estimate after obtaining the case files and analyzing the legal issues. The company then hired my firm and executed our engagement letter, which makes clear estimates are never guarantees due to the unpredictable nature of litigation; I obtained the case files from the client’s former attorney; and I analyzed the legal issues, which turned out to be more complex than I had originally been told. So, I provided an updated cost estimate to prepare and file the brief, and clarified other work would be necessary under the Rules of Civil Procedure since it was ongoing litigation. The client approved the plan of action and authorized me to proceed under the updated cost estimate. I completed and filed the brief, which the client informed me was outstanding. And, I did so within the updated cost estimate range. I also performed the other required litigation tasks, which I informed the client in advance were necessary under the rules and would add to the cost. Unfortunately, when it came time to pay my firm, the client misconstrued our prior correspondence about estimates and disregarded the terms of the engagement agreement he signed. The client insisted he should have to pay only the amount of the original rough estimate I provided at the outset before he hired me and before I obtained the case files to analyze the legal issues, despite that I was clear at the time it was only a rough estimate and despite that I updated the estimate once I got the files and reviewed the issues. The client also stated he need not pay for the additional work I had to perform as required under the Rules of Civil Procedure – he wanted to pay only the original, rough estimate I provided to prepare the brief, despite that he knew other work had to be done in the litigation and despite that he approved that additional work. The client then asked me to perform even more work without first satisfying his payment obligations to my firm, which I could not do. As for the time required to refund of the client’s remaining advance fee deposit, after the case settled, we asked the client to confirm the address to which he wanted the firm to send a check, which is the standard way law firms disburse funds from client trust accounts. The client, who lives and operates his business overseas, stated neither he nor his company would accept a check, and he insisted on an international wire transfer to a foreign bank. My firm had to confirm certain information to accommodate the client’s request for a foreign monetary transaction, which we did promptly. Had the client been willing to accept a check or domestic wire transfer, the funds would have transferred immediately. We did our best to accommodate the client’s unusual request as quickly as possible. Ultimately, the matter resolved favorably for the client within my cost estimate.