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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.