Jody Williams, Paralegal Paralegal to the Rescue Stole Part of The Retainer, Incompetent, Untruthful Las Vegas NV

Jim aka James Cooper, who is actually the owner of Escrow Cash Advance, LLC, of 100 E. San Marcos Blvd., San Marcos, CA, and phone (760) 410-8066, as well as a few other company names he goes by when suing practically anyone he comes into contact with using these alias in order to avoid falling under the vexatious litigant laws in California, has left all of the facts of the dispute between us out of this complaint because it's not a complaint - but an extortion attempt and also part of his need to verbally abuse and harass women. 

In fact, if you were to search for his name and/or his various company names in courts ranging from San Diego, to Los Angeles, and just about every other court in southern California, you'd see the man will sue you if you sneeze around him because this is what he gets off on - battling people over absolutely nothing because he clearly doesn't seem to have much else to do with his life.  

Including to explain to the readers of this complaint that it's ILLEGAL to hire a paralegal to work for you directly.  In California, since about 2009, the state passed a law paralegals are only to work for attorneys.  I run ads offering my support services to attorneys because I DO have over 30 years of paralegal experience - something I not only have not lied about to anyone, but my income tax statements prove I've been working as a paralegal since 1985 continously. 

Meaning I have more experience than some attorneys, and why attorneys hire me to work on difficult cases, trials, etc.  Including the fact I've helped trial teams and litigators on some of the biggest cases in US history including the O.J. trial just to name one.  

So when he approached me and asked to hire me to help him with what he said was a difficult matter, so difficult he said his "attorney told him HE didn't know how to do what he wanted" and had encouraged him to seek "expert counsel" on the matter.  But being Jim, he didn't go out and hire an expert bankruptcy attorney as his attorney had advised him to do, wanting to cheap out - he came to me asking for help after finding out how much expert attorneys wanted to assist him. 

I explained to Jim I couldn't work for him directly, but could only work under the supervision of an attorney ESPECIALLY since the case he was asking me about at first was one where he had an attorney of record named Erin Ginder license #181955.  

Because I am a highly skilled and experienced paralegal, one attorneys hire when they need help on difficult matters - it's very common for me to be brought in as a special paralegal billed directly to the client.  So I explained to Jim that I had to be working directly under the supervision of his attorney of record, and therefore couldn't even BEGIN to discuss the matter with him without first making sure Mr. Ginder was willing to bring me on board.  

So I had a three way call with Mr. Ginder and Jim and Mr. Ginder said what Jim was asking him to do was "beyond the scope of his experience" and therefore he would be willing to supervise my work with Jim paying me directly, and me billing him directly, to assist him on this one particular complex issue, as well as his many other lawsuits he had going.  

Once Mr. Ginder said he agreed to my working with Jim under his supervision, yes Jim paid me a $1000 retainer because that's the only way I work.  Why?  Because ever since about 2008, I've found there is a large number of two factions who have appeared to hire freelance paralegals.  The first is the attorney who can't afford to hire a regular paralegal because they're working out of virtual offices and therefore aren't making a lot of money. 

Many sole practitioners have actually stopped paying for their malpractice insurance and even child support.  What this particular breed of attorney does to get the paralegal support they need, but can't afford, is prey upon younger paralegals who agree to bill this attorney on a 30 day, or even longer, billing cycle. 

Then they proceed to throw everything but the kitchen sink at this paralegal and get them to work overtime, weekends, evenings, and generally work them until their wheels fall off because they know they have to get as much work out of them as possible before the bill becomes due - and the games begin.   

This is when they pick some fight with the poor, exhausted, paralegal and stiff them on the bill.  Then they move onto the next paralegal, and the next and the next.  I've seen attorneys who have literally had judgments against them by the labor dept. who they just keep on burning paralegals.  Hence why any sole practitioners who want to hire me who work out of virtual offices I ask for a retainer.  

The other character is just like Jim.  Then come in sweet talking you about "how much work they're going to give you" so they get you to give them the lowest rate possible.  I normally charge $50 an hour, but Jim promised so much work he negotiated me down to $25 an hour BASED upon the promise of regular ongoing work.

When the retainer is exhausted, they then threaten to blast you with bad reviews all over hell and back if you don't KEEP working for them for free.   Which is essentially what happened here.  Once Jim's retainer was exhausted, and he'd been given the bill and an opportunity to replenish it, he demanded I refund him $400 "or else" he would make this Rip Off Report.  

You'll notice for a man who claims to be so scammed as he claims to be - there's no police report, no law suit, no complaint to the Bar.  Why?  Because he knows ultimately I was working for his attorney, that's one reason.  A man who he neglected to name.  He's also doing this because he knows to defend myself should I choose to sue him for defamation, I can't use any of our conversations as evidence BECAUSE his attorney can argue to suppress based on it being "attorney client priviledge".  

Now, Jim knows I work freelance and have multiple clients.  However, that didn't stop him from calling me at 8 am on a Saturday morning and when I wouldn't answer his calls, he would go off on me with a temper tantrum.  He kept having such fits about my not sitting by the phone 24/7 to answer his calls, and having to do things like leave a voice message for me to return his call within the hour as I always did when he called during business hours, I offered to put in a separate, direct "hot line" where I would be able to answer his calls even if I was doing something else. 

He AUTHORIZED the expense of this second phone line, and in fact, he DEMANDED I give him a separate phone line to be able to reach me directly.  Again, coming out of his retainer which evidently he feels I'm supposed to pay for a second phone line just to take his calls at my lowest hourly billing rate for a new client at my expense "or else" deals with these false complaints he's done EVERYWHERE but to the police or the courts because he knows these are complete fabrications.  

Which demonstrates how he was treating me from day one - abusively.  If I didn't take his call because I was on another call, he would have a fit.  If I told him I was meeting a deadline, and I would get to something "immediately after I was done", he would have a fit.   He also had a fit and started calling me "stupid" and a "moron" when he asked me to do something for his case I've never heard of ever being done in all my years of being a paralegal since 1985. 

Now mind you, HIS OWN ATTORNEY had told him he'd "never heard of this" and "had no idea how to do this" and that's when he told him to go out and hire an attorney who specialized in bankruptcy and probate cases because it wasn't in his wheelhouse is maybe why he hadn't heard of this before.

I say that because Mr. Ginder appears to do primarily personal injury cases - not bankruptcy/probate cases as this matter was Jim wanted done.  So in almost FORTY YEARS of being a paralegal I've never heard of what Jim wanted, nor has his attorney ever heard of this - but when I told Jim I "needed time to do the research to learn HOW to do what he wanted done" - he goes off calling me names like "stupid" and accusing me of "lying about my background", etc.  

So yes the verbal abuse was also escalating.  I not only went through Lexis to try and find what he was asking me how to do, but I also called other attorneys I know who ARE specialists in bankruptcy and probate cases and THEY'D NEVER HEARD of what Jim wanted done.  They didn't even know if it was possible because they'd never done it or seen it done either. 

All of which this research and calling in favors to get consultations on his behalf with other attorneys, were yes coming out of his retainer.  I shouldn't be doing his legal research on my time - and in fact that's against labor laws AND our billing agreement.   

Which yes I do have clients like Jim pay my retainer to me directly rather than to put the money into the attorney's trust account for good reason - if you've heard of how attorneys sometimes run off with clients' money you'd understand I'm not in any position to sue an attorney who just ran off with money to get paid for my work.  

In all my years of paralegal work, I've NEVER found I couldn't find an answer for how to do something - so in frustration I went back to Mr. Ginder about the situation.  Without going into our private conversation, he admitted that's why Jim had found me - because he'd told him to go out and hire a specialist because HE'D never heard of such a thing even being possible either on the off chance maybe it was just something out of his wheel house.   

He then told me that my experience with Jim was "the norm" in that Jim regularly made completely unreasonable and unrealistic demands upon him - when again was why he told  Jim to hire outside help and what was brought us together.  

When I spoke to an expert attorney on the matter who was also a retired judge with over 40 years of experience - he told me the reason why we couldn't find anything on how to do what Jim was asking Mr. Ginder and myself to do was because IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO DO.  By the time I had told Jim we needed to have a three way meeting with him and Mr. Ginder so Mr. Ginder could explain this to him (I couldn't explain anything like this to Jim directly because I'm not an attorney, nor the attorney of record for that specific case either so Mr. Ginder had to explain it to Jim), the retainer, and the cost of installing his "direct hotline" so he didn't have to leave me voice messages and wait for less than an hour to get a call back from me - his retainer was exhausted.  

For anyone else, I would have had this meeting with Jim's attorney and Jim to explain to him what he was asking for literally couldn't be done, and then continued working on his many other lawsuits around California - but the verbal abuse and temper tantrums, as well as the unreasonable demands on my time to be treated like he's my only client and at his beck and call, were just so much I informed Jim I was NOT going to be asking him to put any more money down on my retainer and in fact I was not willing to continue working with him OTHER than if I worked ONLY through Mr. Ginder. 

This was explained in the three way meeting where I told Jim that I was no longer willing to do any work with him directly, but I would continue helping Mr. Ginder with Mr. Ginder being my direct supervisor because the verbal abuse and demands had just become too much for me to deal with anymore.  

Acting like a jilted boyfriend and extortionist, when informing Jim his retainer was used up, and presenting him with his final billing statement, and also informing him I was not going to work directly with him in the future - he demanded I return $400 of his $1000 retainer back to him "or else" these complaints would go out which are purely designed to cost me business. 

I say that because he's sued enough people to know if he truly felt I'd scammed him as he claims here - then all he has to do is file a police report, a complaint to my bank, file a lawsuit and a complaint to the Bar because he's alleging here he hired me directly - which is illegal and could get me in trouble with the Bar - WHICH IS WHY HE'S POSTED THESE COMPLAINTS.   

Jim's trying to make it appear to the Bar I'm operating illegally as a paralegal by saying he hired me directly like he was a pro se litigant -and that's just not the facts.  Ladies and gentlemen, you're witnessing a very common form of extortion now we have the internet. 

I've had many clients now who get the work done they need done, and then they're filing false complaints to their bank and posting false reviews online while telling me they will only remove these complaints if I "return the money" AFTER I've done the work and spent the time.

It's ILLEGAL to hire someone to work for you and then not pay them.  Getting the work done and then threatening their reputation, and trying deliberately to cost them business by slandering them online unless you return the money is basically theft of services by fraud and conversion as well as just plain extortion.  

This supposedly happened in 2021, and I only learned about this report yesterday when a happy client of mine told me about this report.  Since I know Rip Off Report won't remove the complaint, he's forced me to defend myself by explaining what REALLY happened between us. 

I honestly would sue Jim, but frankly this guy gets off so much mentally on arguing and yelling at women and finding excuses to sue them - I think I'd really just be acting as his surrogate dominatrix if I did so.  I say that because I also noticed the only people he sues are WOMEN.  

So no I don't feel like suing him because he'd get off on it in my personal opinion.  I'd rather direct anyone wanting to know about me to read my side of the story and make up their own minds who they believe, and be done with this guy.  And no I don't believe I'm violating any "attorney client priviledge" when (1) I'm not an attorney, (2) I'm not discussing anything about his case I was working on which I don't even believe is open any longer either, and (3) he's the one who turned this into a public issue - not me.  

Besides, I was working under Eric Ginder's supervision on the matter.  I notice he's not mentioned in this complaint and the reason for that is simple - (besides him being a man and not a woman), because Jim knows this is nothing more than him trying to get me to give him money and because of his emotional need to try and cause me harm.   

If he were in fact screwed over, then he would have filed a complaint about his attorney who was supervising my work to the Bar - not this Rip Off Report about me only.  I also wouldn't have considered suing Jim before today because I had no proof I was being economically harmed by these lies.  However, after the phone call I got yesterday alerting me to this complaint, and now I have proof his lies did in fact cost me money and harm my reputation - well I think I'll be consulting one of the attorneys I work for regularly, and have for years, and see what they say about the matter.  

As for these "other complaints" Jim claims were posted about me online, for all I know Jim's behind those.  I say that because when I was alerted to these complaints yesterday, I was confused.  I say that because the ONLY person who I've had any issues with EVER has been Jim.  I went to look at these other complaints and I have no idea who these people are. 

They are not clients of mine and their claims are just sheer rants and fabrications - all which have popped up AFTER Jim threatened to defame me online if I didn't give him this $400 he demanded.  Since it's so easy to fabricate profiles and complaints online, and these people are not clients of mine, and therefore can't show one receipt, and since they used initials even - not full names - for all I know this was Jim trying to make it appear I've done harm to other people to try and make his complaint seem more real.  

It's not.  Things posted on the internet have to be scrutinized.  People make false claims all the time - I mean look at the recent Depp v. Heard case we just saw all over TV.  That's why when people are REALLY scammed - they file police reports, lawsuits, and complaints to the Bar - NONE of which has been done by Jim or any of these people using initials who I've never had any business dealings with making wild accusations and just sheer rants anyone with half a brain can see they aren't even real.  

But after seeing this complaint, I think Mr. Ginder needs to be involved because he was the one supervising my work for Jim after all.  I insisted upon that being clear - and this is exactly WHY I abide by the law.  Because people trying to rip you off can come in many forms . . . including shake down demands such as this.