James Abrams

James Abrams

After spending considerable resources, we identified the individual who slandered us anonymously. This individual had prior counsel before coming to us. The reviewer was fired from employment. Then, the writer of the criticism sought and received legal services from us in excess of the amount actually paid. Not every client can obtain legal assistance to reverse their circumstances. The facts of this case supported the employer's decision to separate this employee who it is safe to say, demonstrated the same characteristics with the former employer [and us] that lead to the firing. This individual fabricated facts with the former employer, fabricated facts with us and fabricated facts in his retaliatory writing to Avvo because the client was unable to obtain the relief sought. There was no request for a refund, no complaint, the writer provided no ability to prove the assertions made about the employer and the writer's identity was then hidden in the Avvo report, it also being fabricated. Notably, this individual combed through many of our reviews to identify a single adverse commentary, among over 150 five star reviews, one by an impaired former client who was declined service. The individual about whom you are now reading then fabricated facts to align the writer's situation with the former client who was declined service. The Denver District Attorney's office indicated that this type of misconduct, i.e. false communications, qualifies as wire fraud by the reviewer, i.e., a reviewer using an interstate, electronic means to perpetrate a fraud on the public by disseminating false information.