Whyte Noise
Senior Member
What is the name of your state? Missouri
Today, in the mail, we received a bill from an attorney we had a consultation with back in April of this year. At that consultation, he stated what his retainer was, and we informed him then that we did not have that kind of money, nor did we know when we would be able to get it. We thanked him for his time, told him that right then, we could not afford it, and told him that if we were able to come up with the retainer fee, we would be back in touch with him about handling the case. This bill we received today states, (and I'm writing verbatim):
September 23, 2002
In Reference To: Child Custody
Invoice #XXXXX
Professional Services
6/10/02 FJC Letter to client reminding him that
we need retainer before we can
prepare his modification papers.
Do huh?!?! We are billed because his secretary typed up a letter to remind us about a retainer? Number one, no one is a client. This was simply a consultation, that he was paid for. Number two, we told him that we would be back in touch with him if we were able to come up with the retainer. He was told that day that we did not have it, and that at that time we couldn't afford his services. Then, he took it upon himself to send us a letter reminding us that in order for the case to move forward, he'd have to get the retainer first. Why are we being billed for this letter that was sent? We have to pay for him sending this letter to try and get us in to pay the retainer faster? I really don't understand how we can be billed when we were never clients, we paid his consultation fee in full, and we told him we could not afford his services and would call HIM if we could. It's not that we won't pay for a service we get, but, I don't consider a reminder letter to someone that told you they couldn't afford you in the first place, a service. Can you explain please?
Edit: OK, That didnt post correctly.... We were billed $22.00 for 20 minutes worth of time to write that "reminder letter". I had written that out to the side, but it showed up jumbled when I posted the thread.
Today, in the mail, we received a bill from an attorney we had a consultation with back in April of this year. At that consultation, he stated what his retainer was, and we informed him then that we did not have that kind of money, nor did we know when we would be able to get it. We thanked him for his time, told him that right then, we could not afford it, and told him that if we were able to come up with the retainer fee, we would be back in touch with him about handling the case. This bill we received today states, (and I'm writing verbatim):
September 23, 2002
In Reference To: Child Custody
Invoice #XXXXX
Professional Services
6/10/02 FJC Letter to client reminding him that
we need retainer before we can
prepare his modification papers.
Do huh?!?! We are billed because his secretary typed up a letter to remind us about a retainer? Number one, no one is a client. This was simply a consultation, that he was paid for. Number two, we told him that we would be back in touch with him if we were able to come up with the retainer. He was told that day that we did not have it, and that at that time we couldn't afford his services. Then, he took it upon himself to send us a letter reminding us that in order for the case to move forward, he'd have to get the retainer first. Why are we being billed for this letter that was sent? We have to pay for him sending this letter to try and get us in to pay the retainer faster? I really don't understand how we can be billed when we were never clients, we paid his consultation fee in full, and we told him we could not afford his services and would call HIM if we could. It's not that we won't pay for a service we get, but, I don't consider a reminder letter to someone that told you they couldn't afford you in the first place, a service. Can you explain please?
Edit: OK, That didnt post correctly.... We were billed $22.00 for 20 minutes worth of time to write that "reminder letter". I had written that out to the side, but it showed up jumbled when I posted the thread.
Last edited: