• Report: #684541

Complaint Review: Bradley P Pollock, Bell & Pollock, PC

Thank You

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

  • Submitted: Wed, January 19, 2011
  • Updated: Thu, May 10, 2012

  • Reported By: Malachi — Boulder Colorado United States of America
Bradley P Pollock, Bell & Pollock, PC
7000 East Belleview Avenue, Suite 200 Greenwood Village, Colorado United States of America

Bradley P Pollock, Bell & Pollock, PC Disabled client abandoned by "Champions of the People" attorney, Brad Pollock Greenwood Village, Colorado

*Consumer Comment: Litigation Against Bell & Pollock

*Author of original report: Striderq, do you not have a life?

*General Comment: Why...

*Author of original report: My Response to Brad Pollock, part I

*REBUTTAL Individual responds: Response

*REBUTTAL Individual responds: Response

What's this?
What's this?
What's this?
Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Does your business have a bad reputation?
Fix it the right way.
Corporate Advocacy Program™

SEO Reputation Management at its best!

First off, I'd like to make a few things clear:

1. Since writing this report creates a permanent record, I did not make this decision lightly. In accordance with a spiritual principle, I have made several attempts to resolve this dispute with the other party (to no avail) prior to writing this report. Having done so, my conscience is clear.

2.A disclaimer: I am not aware ofanyone else'sexperiences with retaining Brad Pollock or working with Bell & Pollock, P.C. I can only attest to my OWN experience and my perceptions of that experience. I don't claim to be an all-knowing expert or a mind-reader.

3. Due to the fact that I am disclosing some of the confidential details of my case, I am withholding my identity.

4. I have a documented physical disability andlive on SSI. I don't define myself by my disabilityor my physical limitiations, though. Iam writing about this only because it is relevant to this report.

5. My motive for filing this report is twofold: to warn others that Brad Pollock &Bell & Pollock, P.C.may not quite be who they present themselves to be, and to see if I can obtain another lawyer or law firm to assist me. If you are an attorney and believe you can assist me in my accident case, please leave me your contact info in the reply section.

Here is a brief summary of my experience with Brad Pollock and Bell & Pollock, P.C.

I contacted Mr. Pollock last November to hire him for my accident case. Our first meeting at a coffee shop went well. He's a down-to-earth guy withgreat listening skills, and he exhibits genuine (not forced)empathy.I gave him the originals of my documents to take to his office to copy. He agreed to take some immediate, time-sensitive actions on my behalf. I left our meeting feeling ecstatic I had found the right attorney for me.

Given this great beginning,I feltquite disappointed when - in the following weeks - nothing appeared to be getting done on my case. When Itold one ofMr. Pollock'sparalegals that I had not heard back from himsince our initial meeting, she told me it is customary in large law firms like theirs for the client not to hear from her attorney (while the paralegals handlethe case)until the case is ready to go to trial. This was upsetting news to me. In all my past experiences with attorneys, I've neverexperienced havinga lawyer stop speaking to me once he/she took my case. I called Mr. Pollock to try and speak with him about things directly; again, no response. However, back when I was a "prospect," my calls were always returned in a very timely manner. In addition, Mr. Pollock's virtual disappearance was in contradiction with their own stated policies on their podcasts. Co-founder A. Gary Bell states that, when you hire Bell & Pollock, your case will NOT be turned over a paralegal.

Look, clients understand their attorneys get busy sometimes and communications mishaps can happen. However, there's a BIG difference between having one member of a law firm claim they do not turn over the cases to the paralegals and anotheremployee admitting that's exactly what they do. Again, I do not know of others' experiences with Bell & Polllock; I can only write of my own.

My brief attorney/client relationship with Mr. Pollock came to a head over these communication issuesand resulted in a kind of "mutual termination." However, I felt I may have overreacted and immediately attempted to clear things up. I had some stressful life events happening at that time (i.e. the death of a parent, the breakdown and lossof my car, etc) and recognized my own part in what occurred. I apologized; I spoke with his paralegal who tried to clear things up between us - all to no avail.

The fact is, I did not want to be without an experiencedattorney in my case. Gary Bell and Brad Pollock have experience in the type of injury I suffered in my car accident. It shouldn't be so difficult to find a competentattorney withknowledge and understanding ofthis type of injury, but unfortunately it is.

Since the termination with Mr. Pollock, I am now without legal representation. Mr. Bell and Mr. Pollock speak of how the attorneys for the at fault party's insurance are the REAL adversary and how we shouldn't speak with them.

Despite this, Mr. Pollock sent the representative for the at fault party's insurance a notice that he is no longer representing me, and he advised her - if she had any questions - to contact ME. Well, he may as well thrown me into a lion's den! Heiswell aware I'm not qualified to represent myself in this situation.

Had Mr. Pollock stood by me, I would have become Bell & Pollock's biggest fan as I do respect their contribution to the community. unfortunately, he threw me under the bus instead.


This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/19/2011 07:50 PM and is a permanent record located here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Bradley-P-Pollock-Bell-Pollock-PC/Greenwood-Village-Colorado-80111/Bradley-P-Pollock-Bell-Pollock-PC-Disabled-client-abandoned-by-Champions-of-the-Peop-684541. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year.

Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report.

Click Here to read other Ripoff Reports on Bradley P Pollock, Bell & Pollock, PC

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Search Tips
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?
REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author 2Consumer 2Employee/Owner
Updates & Rebuttals

#1 Consumer Comment

Litigation Against Bell & Pollock

AUTHOR: William - (United States of America)

Our law firm represents a client who has an action against the law firm of Bell & Pollock, P.C. for malpractice.  We are interested in speaking with the individual who made the report "Disabled client abandoned by "Champions of the People" attorney, Brad Pollock, regarding the events that led up to her filing the report on Ripoff Reports.  Please contact us.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

Striderq, do you not have a life?

AUTHOR: Malachi - (United States of America)

Boy you were quick to respond to my post, and on a Sunday, too!  Do you not have a life?  Seriously, are you glued to your computer awaiting my next report?  Or are you just trying to lend a hand to Brad while he's off - I don't know - working on how to spell his last name?

You don't seem to grasp how this system works so I guess I'll have to spell it out for you.  I cannot add an addendum to my original post.  After about a month of silence, I am now in the process of responsing to Brad Pollock's rebuttal to my original post.  And that's how it works:

1.  Original post
2.  rebuttal
3.  response to rebuttal
4.  possibly a response to the response, etc.

Get it?

Also, in my current circumstances, I have limited use of the internet.  As such, I am posting my response in installments since I do not have the option of writing it all in one sitting at this time.  (Gentlemen, if you are reading this, please don't give a second thought to my pesky little struggles.  After all, what REALLY matters is keeping the "Bell & Pollock cares" PR machinery going, right?)

If you don't like my reports, you are certainly welcome not to read them.  I just don't see where you bring anything to the table here with your snide remarks.  If your goal is to discourage or dissuade me from expressing my 1st amendment rights, good luck!  I've survived Bell & Pollock's full-on intimidation tactics (when I asked them for my file back).  Do you really think you're going to make a difference here?  At best your presence is simply annoying in the manner of a fly buzzing around one's head.

And fyi:  Alignment has nothing to do with eliciting agreement or disagreement from strangers on the internet.  I'd be glad to explain Alignment to you, but I doubt your worldview is high enough to grasp abstract concepts.

And yes, worldview is one of the elements of Alignment.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 General Comment

Why...

AUTHOR: Striderq - (U.S.A.)

do you keep filing new reports? Especially when they say the same things over and over. You should continue to post on your original report. Or a you trying to find"alignment" with the responses? By the way, many professionals will give their clients/prospective clients their work cell phone. Nothing new here
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#4 Author of original report

My Response to Brad Pollock, part I

AUTHOR: Malachi - (United States of America)

I will respond to your rebuttal by quoting certain parts of it, followed by my reply.  It may take me several times to complete this response.

On 2/8/11, Brad Pollock writes:

I did meet with this person in mid November of 2010 to discuss the accident which occurred in February 2009.  She had previously employed an attorney to represent her on this case whom she had fired.

My reply:  This statement has no basis in fact.  My previous attorney was in my employ from April 2009 to early August 2010.  He resigned the case during a time he was interviewing for jobs overseas in his wife's country of origin.  He resigned reluctantly and wrote off the expenses.  We are still on friendly terms via occasional email contact.  He was happy for me when I told him I had found a new attorney and disappointed for me when I told him it had not worked out.  Of course, you are well aware I did not fire him since you still have a copy of his letter of resignation in your file - but the issue of you holding my file hostage is another topic I will address later.

BP writes:  She had interviewed a number of other attorneys prior to meeting with me.

Me:  No, I didn't.  Where do you come up with this stuff?  When my previous lawyer gave me my entire file, he also gave me the name of a lawyer who was interested in taking my case.  One of my health care practitioners also gave me references to about a half dozen local attorneys.  While I know the standard advice for hiring a new attorney is to interview a bunch of them, this had never been my approach.  I just do a little research and then go straight to the person I feel is the best fit.  In choosing a PI attorney, I look for 3 things in the following order: 1). alignment 2). experience and 3). compassion.  Alignment - and my ability to assess it - is a topic too detailed to cover here.  It involves having shared values. 

Based on this criteria, I chose you.  There was no one else.

BP:  The meeting took place at a coffee shop an hour and half away from my office...

Me:  Yes, it was very nice of you to make this long drive to meet with me.  I thanked you for this as we were standing by my car, saying goodnight.  This was right after you apologized for being a half hour late to our meeting.

BP:  I agreed to investigate her case and review these documents.

Me:  Oh, that's interesting: I thought you were taking my case.  At one point you offered me your cell phone number and I get the sense you don't do this indiscriminately, so yes, I thought you were taking my case.  If you were just "investigating" it, then why did you offer me your cell number?  I didn't ask for it; nor did I offer you mine.  Did you just want me to call you?

to be cont.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#5 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Response

AUTHOR: Brad Polock - (United States of America)

I believe I know who this person is that has made this complaint and, therefore, I am responding to show that her complaints are not valid. Because of attorney confidences, I am not entitled to reveal the content of any communications which I have had with this person nor am I entitled to reveal any specifics about her situation.

    I did meet with this person in mid November of 2010 to discuss the accident which occurred in February of 2009. She had previously employed an attorney to represent her on this case whom she fired. She had interviewed a number of other attorneys prior to meeting with me. The meeting took place at a coffee shop an hour and a half away from my office where I met her one evening at approximately 7:00 p.m. The meeting lasted until approximately 8:30. She provided me with substantial documents to review.

    I agreed to investigate her case and review these documents. By the next day she began persistent and repeated telephone calls to our office even at times when she knew I was not available. At times calls were made minutes apart even when she was told that I was out of the office. Because we did not take certain actions that we deemed inappropriate and she demanded, she sent a letter of termination to us demanding that she be given her entire file. We gave her the entire file and she was free to pursue any other representation from any other attorney. The statute of limitation for an accident is three years and, therefore, she has more than enough time to find another attorney.

    At a later date she did contact this office to represent her again. This office refused to do so. This decision was made after a thorough discussion within the office concerning this individual, her case, her demands and what our investigation had revealed to that date. She most certainly was not thrown under the bus. Rather, we evaluated the case very carefully with the hopes that we might be able to not only give her the quality representation that we strive to give every client but also meet the demands which she had for her case. When we decided that was not possible we declined representation of her.

    As to her statements of lack of contact or inabilities to speak with lawyers in this office, we dispute the same. However, that is not relevant or material. Also, we cannot go further into detail concerning the type of demands she had and why we were not willing to act as she requested. We can only state that we try very hard to represent all of our clients zealously and within the boundaries of the law. We will fight for our clients at every stage of the proceedings and do everything we can to maximize recovery. We have been successful as a law firm for over 30 years and we have well over 70 years of combined legal experience. We believe we have a firm understanding of what we can and cannot do in pursuit of cases on behalf of our clients and, although we are willing to consider new and innovative alternatives and avenues, there are some actions which we will simply will not take no matter how much our clients insist on the same.

    We have been very clear with our position with this person, we have told her our position and explained our position. She most certainly has not been "thrown under the bus". She has more than sufficient time to find other attorneys to represent her. The fact that she cannot find other attorneys to represent her is, perhaps, the best indicator for her to understand that if she wants representation then she will have to address her own attitude and conduct with regard to her case and, further, she will have to abandon or at least significantly modify her demands. Although there are a great many factors and details which are also a part of this case, I am not at liberty to reveal them and, therefore, all I can say is that this is not a matter of lack of communications or ignoring her case. It is, instead, simply a matter of the fact that this firm is not willing to take the actions this client insist be taken nor is this firm willing to represent her based on the history of and status of her case. Instead, after careful consideration and investigation, this firm decided this was not an appropriate case to be pursued.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#6 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Response

AUTHOR: Brad Polock - (United States of America)

I believe I know who this person is that has made this complaint and, therefore, I am responding to show that her complaints are not valid. Because of attorney confidences, I am not entitled to reveal the content of any communications which I have had with this person nor am I entitled to reveal any specifics about her situation. I did meet with this person in mid November of 2010 to discuss the accident which occurred in February of 2009. She had previously employed an attorney to represent her on this case whom she fired. She had interviewed a number of other attorneys prior to meeting with me. The meeting took place at a coffee shop an hour and a half away from my office where I met her one evening at approximately 7:00 p.m. The meeting lasted until approximately 8:30. She provided me with substantial documents to review. I agreed to investigate her case and review these documents. By the next day she began persistent and repeated telephone calls to our office even at times when she knew I was not available. At times calls were made minutes apart even when she was told that I was out of the office. Because we did not take certain actions that we deemed inappropriate and she demanded, she sent a letter of termination to us demanding that she be given her entire file. We gave her the entire file and she was free to pursue any other representation from any other attorney. The statute of limitation for an accident is three years and, therefore, she has more than enough time to find another attorney. At a later date she did contact this office to represent her again. This office refused to do so. This decision was made after a thorough discussion within the office concerning this individual, her case, her demands and what our investigation had revealed to that date. She most certainly was not thrown under the bus. Rather, we evaluated the case very carefully with the hopes that we might be able to not only give her the quality representation that we strive to give every client but also meet the demands which she had for her case. When we decided that was not possible we declined representation of her. As to her statements of lack of contact or inabilities to speak with lawyers in this office, we dispute the same. However, that is not relevant or material. Also, we cannot go further into detail concerning the type of demands she had and why we were not willing to act as she requested. We can only state that we try very hard to represent all of our clients zealously and within the boundaries of the law. We will fight for our clients at every stage of the proceedings and do everything we can to maximize recovery. We have been successful as a law firm for over 30 years and we have well over 70 years of combined legal experience. We believe we have a firm understanding of what we can and cannot do in pursuit of cases on behalf of our clients and, although we are willing to consider new and innovative alternatives and avenues, there are some actions which we will simply will not take no matter how much our clients insist on the same. We have been very clear with our position with this person, we have told her our position and explained our position. She most certainly has not been "thrown under the bus". She has more than sufficient time to find other attorneys to represent her. The fact that she cannot find other attorneys to represent her is, perhaps, the best indicator for her to understand that if she wants representation then she will have to address her own attitude and conduct with regard to her case and, further, she will have to abandon or at least significantly modify her demands. Although there are a great many factors and details which are also a part of this case, I am not at liberty to reveal them and, therefore, all I can say is that this is not a matter of lack of communications or ignoring her case. It is, instead, simply a matter of the fact that this firm is not willing to take the actions this client insist be taken nor is this firm willing to represent her based on the history of and status of her case. Instead, after careful consideration and investigation, this firm decided this was not an appropriate case to be pursued.
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.



Ripoff Report Legal Directory