What is the correct answer to this situation? What do you feel the Attorney should do to attempt to resolve this issue with Client? Should there be some form of compensation to the Client from this Attorney?
Randall Walker Bar Card Number 20721600 has a client which had a scheduled hearing of March 24 at 1115 Congress, family Law Center, 5th Floor, Court # 1. This is what Happened...
On March 19 Randall Walker informed his client at a scheduled meeting in Randall Walker's office that he had contacted a friend, Mary E. Ramos, 1214 Miramar Street, Houston Texas 77006,713-225-6200.
Randall Walker told the client that in the past he had worked at the Attorney General Office with Mary, and that he had sent an overnight package of his case to her and she had agreed to appear in place of Randall Walker in the scheduled hearing concerning client. Randall Walker told the client that Randall Walker would be responsible for all payment to Mary Ramos for services rendered. Randall Walker said that the"paid in full retainer by client" was all that client would be charged concerning this issue. Randall Walker said that Mary Ramos office would contact client on his cell phone Monday afternoon and let him know where and when to meet on Tuesday morning March 24
On March 23 at approximately 2:00 P.M., client had not received any response from Mary Ramos office. Client called Randall Walker office and was told by his staff that they did not know what Randall was doing concerning this issue and client was given phone number to office of Mary Ramos. Client contacted office of Mary Ramos and was told that they knew nothing of this. Client called Randall Walker office and was told to wait a few minutes and call Mary Ramos back. Client was advised that the office of Randall Walker was going to call the office of Mary Ramos to finalize the arrangements. The office of Randall Walker told client that there was just some sort of miscommunication and they would get it solved. At 4:30 P.M., Client was called by the office of Randall Walker. The client was told that Robin (the legal assistant of Randall Walker had been on vacation and had failed to finalize the Arrangement, but the issue had been resolved and call Mary Ramos. The client called the office of Mary Ramos. At this time Mary Ramos told the client that she had not discussed anything with Randall Walker concerning working with him concerning anything on behalf of the client. Mary Ramos said that her office had not received any documents concerning client from the office of Randall Walker. Mary Ramos stated that she didn't even know a Randall Walker. Now it was 5:00 P.M. And Client called the office of Randall Walker and got the answering machine which stated the office was closed. Client had to be in court at 8:00 A.M. March 24 with Randall Walker listed as client's attorney on file, and Client had no idea what to expect when he went before the Judge, whom is known as a no - nonsense judge.
Client sent a fax to the office Randall Walker, fax 940-761-1910 asking Randall Walker to "Man Up" and get a postponement. Client advised Randall Walker that he would have no choice but to tell this to the Court.
On March 24 at approximately 9:00 A.M. Client received a phone call from the office of Randall Walker.
Client believes that phone call was as a result of the fax. Client told secretary that Randall needs to do something, call the court, something for the client. Client was advised that she had not heard anything from Randall Walker that morning. She believed Randall might be in court in Wichita Falls. After 9:30 A.M., Client asked to speak to the Court. Client talked with Court Administrator. Client told all which had occurred since March 19th through the last phone call from the office of Randall Walker. The Court Administrator asked for the phone number of Randall Walker. Client gave this number to the Court Administrator. The Court Administrator called the office and was told by the secretary that Randall Walker knew of the court date, she thought Randall was in court in Wichita falls, did not know what he was doing, but she did know that he never had any intention of appearing with the client for the this hearing. The Court Administrator notified the Judge about what was going on. Since the Judge was present at this time, he asked the court personnel if this attorney had notified the court concerning this case. The Judge was notified that no one had received any calls from this Attorney or his office.
The Judge reset the hearing for April 28 at 9:00 P.M. Due to the reason that they could not proceed with client without counsel on record not being present. The reset was to allow Client to obtain new Council. While Client was appearing before the Court, Client received a cell phone voice message from office of Randall Walker saying that she had told Randall and all of this was on Randall now.
On March 25 Client telephoned the office of Randall Walker to set appointment. Client was told that secretary was no longer employed with office. Client stated that he needed an appointment with Randall Walker to discuss this issue and his expectation of being refunded his retainer fee. At 3:05 P.M., a message was left on Clients cell phone voice message that Randall Walker would not be able to see Client until 3:00 P.M. On March 30 and if this did not work for client call back and see what she could do.
Client has 32 days to retrieve all documents from the office of Randall Walker, obtain new council and present payment for services to new council— and Randall Walker could not see Client until 3:00 P.M. Monday March 30. Randall Walker was fully aware that the Mathews household had experience financial setbacks in February, (Client's wife lost employment due to office restructure and economy and Client had lost 32 hours month of overtime due to economy collapse) Client has no idea where and how he is going to come up with the funds to pay new council or to cover the travel expenses to return to court.
Now, since you have been told what happened, what do you think? Client would appreciate feedback on this issue!
The Client is Dennie Mathews, 306 E. Crystal, Iowa Park, Texas 76367. Ph 940-592-9002.
Mary E. Ramos, Bar Number 24045170 is the Attorney in Houston whom knew nothing concerning what Randall Walker was doing and associating her name with. The Court Administrator was the one that gave Dennie Mathews the information that he needed to file a compliant with the Wichita Bar Association. She stated that it would be a committee at the local bar responsible to investigate this issue and administer discipline action and help the client receive reimbursement of monies collected by Randall Walker on this issue. Consider this the summons for filing a formal complaint and respond to Dennie or Dakiea Mathews concerning this issue and resolution.
Randall Walker is a member of the Better Business Bureau
Thanks in advance for your assistance.
Consumer's Desired Resolution:
BBB Processing
03/26 co BBB Case Received by BBB
03/26 co MAIL Manually Inform Member of Case
03/26 co EMAIL SEND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TO CONSUMER: Complaint Response Date bumped because: W/e
03/26 co EMAIL BUREAU COMMENT: Correspondence sent to consumer BEFORE complaint was filed.
Thank you for your correspondence. Please let me first state that the BBB is a neutral third party and does not give any legal advice.
Processing a complaint is one option available to you and we will formally process this complaint.
You may want to call West Texas Legal Service at 723.5542, they have legal advice and assistance for consumers meeting certain financial criteria.
The Bar Association of Texas can be reached at 800.204.2222.
You will have a case number assigned to you shortly and we will forward this complaint to the company.
03/26 co EMAIL BUREAU COMMENT: Correspondence from consumer after processing complaint and acknowledgement.
The Bar Association has already been contacted, the Grievance is presently being prepared. We are contacting and filing complaints every possible avenue. It is our goal that other potential clients might become aware that there could be a very unfortunate outcome in their expectations. This behavior does not appear to be what the Better Business Bureau expects of their members.
04/02 co BBB MORE INFO RECEIVED FROM THE CONSUMER: Dennie Mathews had a meeting with Randall Walker on March 30 at 4:00 PM. Dennie took a male witness with him, whom he never introduced to Randall Walker. The witness was present during the entire meeting. Randall Walker did return the records of Dennie Mathews - but there was no resolution to the return of the 1000.00 retainer fee or the. 50 per mile travel reimbursement.
At this time, Dennie does not feel that Randall Walker has rendered a sufficient resolution to the issues involved. Per Randall Walkers admission during this meeting - Randall said that he would charge 500.00 for a case to take before the Judge, when in reality he charged Dennie Mathews 1000.00 when he actually did nothing on this case. There are no motions on behalf of Dennie filed with this court.
Dennie Mathews is requesting the full refund of the retainer, and the travel reimbursement as that is only fair. Dennie Mathews would like Randall Walker to admit his part in this issue but Randall does not seem to follow that He lies as he goes.
04/07 co BBB No response to first notice to member
04/07 co BBB REMINDER OF DISPUTE TO BUSINESS - MEMBER: Called, left message. Contact 4/8
send complaint email to be sure.
Complaint Response Date bumped because: weekend
Complaint Response Date bumped because: Weekend
04/14 co BBB BUREAU COMMENT: spoke with Terry, wants complaint resent via fax.
04/16 co BBB BUREAU COMMENT: Ebindr form added 7 days to time frame when complaint was resent. Add days to tickler.
04/22 co BBB No Response received from Business on 2nd Notice
04/22 co BBB PHONE CALL OR TIME EXTENSION: Monica called. No answer, left message. Give two more days.
04/24 co BBB No Response received from Business on 2nd Notice
04/24 co BBB Inform Consumer No Response from Business
04/24 co EMAIL Inform Consumer - Case Closed UNANSWERED
04/24 co MAIL Inform Business - Case Closed UNANSWERED
04/24 co BBB CASE CLOSED - UNANSWERED: closure letter was returned and put in the file.
04/26 BBB MORE INFO RECEIVED FROM THE CONSUMER: On April 15 the State Bar of Texas sent Dennie Mathews a letter stating The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas has reviewed the Grievance H0040928622 Dennie Mathews - Randall W. Walker and determined the supplied information provided alleges Professional Misconduct. Randall Walker will be provided a copy of the Compliant, directed to file a response, and provide Dennie Mathews a copy of the response within thirty days of receiving notice of the complaint. After receiving the written response the counsel shall investigate the complaint to determine whether there is Just Cause to believe the lawyer has committed Professional Misconduct requiring that a Sanction be imposed. Disciplinary proceedings, including the investigation and processing of a compliant are strictly confidental. Facts and evidence which are discovered elsewhere are not made confidenetal merely becasue they are discussed or introduced in the course of a disciplinary proceeding. Dennie Mathews will be notified in writing of further proceedings in this matter.
0 comments