They tried to get the money dishonestly. If they really felt they were in the right, they wouldn’t have needed to try to use deception.
That’s what the customer says. Speaking of smartarse lawyer letters, my favourite letter was written by a London lawyer of my acquantance. I’m going from memory, but it was two sentences long and it said simply:
You would do well to consider her words, and to think about how minutely and subtely the story of what happened between the dealership and the customer would need to change before the villain of the piece would change.
The “defamation” accusation would be just as bogus, regardless, so the villain wouldn’t change. Even if the client was a huge, lying asshole, it wouldn’t give the dealership’s attempt to intimidate him with phony legal threats any more validity.
IMHO it would even it out somewhat. If the customer was a huge lying asshole but nonetheless chose to beat up the dealership publically for failing to uncomplainingly accommodate his assholishness, then giving him a dose of his own assholishness would seem roughly to be fair play to me.
Of course, I have no idea if this was what happened. Or that it wasn’t.
Oh, for heaven’s sake, could you all please stop? None of this is of the slightest relevance to why the letter is interesting and funny (the pointless libel threat/the Streisand effect), and it impedes discussion of other amusing lawyer letters, a matter in which some of us are (still) interested.
I’d just also like to add that I’ve been reviewing the filings in the Glenn Beck case and I have to say that they show pretty conclusively that nothing improves a legal brief like a good lolcat.
But, but…Glee lives in England…
Y’all realize your arguing about a god damn Hyundai, right?
Because the customer was unhappy about having been asked to pony up $1000. If They can convince the customer that they’re being nice/generous by asking him for only half that amount, then they have curried some goodwill with that customer.
A-fucking-men. Give it a rest already.
I must be the only one in the thread to think that Becky comes off as a bit of an asshole. She tried to get a lawyer who does not do debt collections to act on her behalf. He thanks her for the offer, but mentions his fees and retainer as the reason why he is not interested. Becky is the one who gets all snooty because he makes a hell of a lot more than she does.
It’s a little like asking Michael DeBakey to fix your brother-in-law’s hernia.
Not in the same league as the letter of the OP, nor of the Private Eye letter.
Regards,
Shodan
Except for the fact that she didn’t know what his fees were before contacting him. Or the fact that he lied about his rates. Or the fact that merely *mentioning *your rates in a letter like that is incredibly pretentious.
And that he prefaced the rates with “Without sounding pretentious.” You don’t get to just declare something like that.
One does not silly lawyer letter into Mordor.
I’ll add that the professional way to deal with such enquiries is to politely note that this is not your practice area and suggest (if possible) a reference or two.
I can’t believe I’ve never seen that. As an IP lawyer, I do take slight issue with a couple of his legal positions and assumptions, but it’s great fun to read.
Well, he did mention that this was not his practice area. And the difference between $500 and $1000 per hour is not, to me, all that significant when discussing a collection on a $4200 debt.
There are certainly more polite ways of saying, “I am out of your league”, but there are less polite ways, too.
It would be interesting to find out how she picked his name to contact. I imagine he is not listed in the Yellow Pages.
Regards,
Shodan
Why wouldn’t he be listed in the yellow pages?
What I do, is ask around the office. But then, I work in a large firm; it is almost guaranteed there is someone here who knows someone appropriate. A firm-wide email generally does the trick!
If I worked at a smaller place, I’d ask my friends first. After that, there are plenty of resources for finding lawyers, particularly in the US -
Unless there is a good reason otherwise (and to the extent possible, even then) it generally pays to be polite and professional in professional dealings, because you never know when acting otherwise will come back to bite you in the ass.
I saw an amusing example of this once. Here in Ontario we have judicial type officials known as “masters” who deal with certain types of motions (they are lesser if you will than judges). A bunch of lawyers gather in a courtroom and the master deals with one motion after another.
One day, I get on a crowded elevator already full and two lawyers crowd on after me. They met on the way to court and were obviously buddies - they were discussing their upcomming motions and, in particular, their shared distain for ‘master X’, whom they were to appear before that day. The elevator stopped at every floor and they had plenty of time to describe 'master X’s shortcommings - mental, moral and physical (he was short, which the two friends had great fun with. I believe “Napoleon” was mentioned).
Predictably enough, as we finally piled out on our floor, the last to leave was “master X” - so short that he’d been hidden behind the crowd inside the elevator. Last I saw was the two friends disappearing into “master X”'s courtroom and looking none too happy about it.
Agreed on the “great fun” part and no comment on the IP part since I’m not an IP lawyer. But I did have to write a similar sort of letter (well, kind of similar–in my case, I was rebutting an unsupported claim by reminding the claimant that our client requires complete and proper documentation from an independent and neutral third party before he will believe there even is a claim) not long ago. I was as professional and polite as I could be, but I almost wish I had seen this first. Then I might have had a little more fun with the draft.
As it was, I had to resist the urge to use phrases like, “what planet are you from?” and “your claim is laughable” much to the disappointment of my assistant.