Roni Lynn Deutch Law Offices took the last money I had ($4,300!!)and did nothing to help me! Sacremento California

Jan opened this can of worms when she decided to use defamation as a weapon against her attorney. Once Jan decided to use a public forum to air her grievances against her attorney's office she waived a large part (if not all) of her attorney-client privilege.

Greg was well within his rights to defend the company, and as an attorney I'm sure that he is aware of the company's rights where privilege is concerned. I'm sorry that Jan feels like she's been taken advantage of, but in my experience with this company a large percentage of disgruntled ex-clients have no standing to bring suit against the company, and so they just make a lot of noise.

Most are only sounding off to make themselves feel better about their own failure to provide the information requested in a reasonable amount of time, failure to disclose all relevant financial information during the initial telephone interview, or their blatant attempt(s) to hide assets from the IRS.

That's not to say that I didn't see a few clients that most definitely had every right to be angry about the way their case was handled. I don't know the specifics of Jan's case and do not pretend to. My point is that Jan broke attorney-client privilege when she aired her grievances on this site. I wish her luck and hope she finds the resolution she needs.

Greg is a spinless jellyfish. He knows and eveyone else knows that he knows who jan is and the simple fact is that he did give private information to others with a list of times, dates, and paper work.

Its not like jan dosent have the same documents that he has and jan if you cant get your money back for misrepresentation.

I would look up you rights under the penal code online on how you can sue the office for malpractice and negligence for showing attorney client information to the public with the underlining of thinking that no one would find out or he could just say that is was a similar case.

LOOK LIKE SOME ONE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE BASICS AND RE-TAKE AN ETHICS CLASS OR REFRESH ON ATTORNEY CLIENT CONFIDENTIALITY.

amiee, Berkley

In regards to determining the identity of the original poster, I'm sure it wasn't too difficult. Our friend the EDitor may have been required by law to divulge that information, the firm may have been able to match up elements of the report with particular client file, who knows. Large law firms can pretty much find out anything they want. Is that always ethical? Maybe not. Is it in this case? I would say so.

Jan accused the firm of providing "grossly negligent" legal representation. This is a very strong statement. If there is a factual omission in Jan's report that would put the situation in a different light, as Greg asserts there was, shouldn't the firm have the opportunity to present it's side of the story?

I'm not making any statement as to the merits here, but if Jan has the opportunity to cry "gross negligence," the firm should have the opportunity to defend itself against that accusation.

Greg may have gone a bit too far in divulging the specifics of his client's file, but bear in mind that you yourself stated that there are probably many Jans in Phoenix, so he hasn't really put any specific, identifiable person's information out there for the world to see.

Don't all lawyers pretty much do what anyone could do themselves? The difference is that the lawyers know exactly how to do it. If you knew nothing about how to resolve your tax problem, would you even know where to start in researching possibilities? What if you did some research, came up with one program and followed through with it, but there was a much better option that you could have gone with and failed to? Anyone can represent themselves, but people usually opt to hire a lawyer because he either knows the law or can figure out what the law is. A lay person can try to research his own case, but I'll garauntee ya he doesn't know how to shepardize, or that "shepardize" is even a word.

Again, I'm not making any distinctions as to merits, and I'm not saying that lawyers don't cost too much money, but Greg is entitled to defend his organization.

In regards to determining the identity of the original poster, I'm sure it wasn't too difficult. Our friend the EDitor may have been required by law to divulge that information, the firm may have been able to match up elements of the report with particular client file, who knows. Large law firms can pretty much find out anything they want. Is that always ethical? Maybe not. Is it in this case? I would say so.

Jan accused the firm of providing "grossly negligent" legal representation. This is a very strong statement. If there is a factual omission in Jan's report that would put the situation in a different light, as Greg asserts there was, shouldn't the firm have the opportunity to present it's side of the story?

I'm not making any statement as to the merits here, but if Jan has the opportunity to cry "gross negligence," the firm should have the opportunity to defend itself against that accusation.

Greg may have gone a bit too far in divulging the specifics of his client's file, but bear in mind that you yourself stated that there are probably many Jans in Phoenix, so he hasn't really put any specific, identifiable person's information out there for the world to see.

Don't all lawyers pretty much do what anyone could do themselves? The difference is that the lawyers know exactly how to do it. If you knew nothing about how to resolve your tax problem, would you even know where to start in researching possibilities? What if you did some research, came up with one program and followed through with it, but there was a much better option that you could have gone with and failed to? Anyone can represent themselves, but people usually opt to hire a lawyer because he either knows the law or can figure out what the law is. A lay person can try to research his own case, but I'll garauntee ya he doesn't know how to shepardize, or that "shepardize" is even a word.

Again, I'm not making any distinctions as to merits, and I'm not saying that lawyers don't cost too much money, but Greg is entitled to defend his organization.

In regards to determining the identity of the original poster, I'm sure it wasn't too difficult. Our friend the EDitor may have been required by law to divulge that information, the firm may have been able to match up elements of the report with particular client file, who knows. Large law firms can pretty much find out anything they want. Is that always ethical? Maybe not. Is it in this case? I would say so.

Jan accused the firm of providing "grossly negligent" legal representation. This is a very strong statement. If there is a factual omission in Jan's report that would put the situation in a different light, as Greg asserts there was, shouldn't the firm have the opportunity to present it's side of the story?

I'm not making any statement as to the merits here, but if Jan has the opportunity to cry "gross negligence," the firm should have the opportunity to defend itself against that accusation.

Greg may have gone a bit too far in divulging the specifics of his client's file, but bear in mind that you yourself stated that there are probably many Jans in Phoenix, so he hasn't really put any specific, identifiable person's information out there for the world to see.

Don't all lawyers pretty much do what anyone could do themselves? The difference is that the lawyers know exactly how to do it. If you knew nothing about how to resolve your tax problem, would you even know where to start in researching possibilities? What if you did some research, came up with one program and followed through with it, but there was a much better option that you could have gone with and failed to? Anyone can represent themselves, but people usually opt to hire a lawyer because he either knows the law or can figure out what the law is. A lay person can try to research his own case, but I'll garauntee ya he doesn't know how to shepardize, or that "shepardize" is even a word.

Again, I'm not making any distinctions as to merits, and I'm not saying that lawyers don't cost too much money, but Greg is entitled to defend his organization.

In regards to determining the identity of the original poster, I'm sure it wasn't too difficult. Our friend the EDitor may have been required by law to divulge that information, the firm may have been able to match up elements of the report with particular client file, who knows. Large law firms can pretty much find out anything they want. Is that always ethical? Maybe not. Is it in this case? I would say so.

Jan accused the firm of providing "grossly negligent" legal representation. This is a very strong statement. If there is a factual omission in Jan's report that would put the situation in a different light, as Greg asserts there was, shouldn't the firm have the opportunity to present it's side of the story?

I'm not making any statement as to the merits here, but if Jan has the opportunity to cry "gross negligence," the firm should have the opportunity to defend itself against that accusation.

Greg may have gone a bit too far in divulging the specifics of his client's file, but bear in mind that you yourself stated that there are probably many Jans in Phoenix, so he hasn't really put any specific, identifiable person's information out there for the world to see.

Don't all lawyers pretty much do what anyone could do themselves? The difference is that the lawyers know exactly how to do it. If you knew nothing about how to resolve your tax problem, would you even know where to start in researching possibilities? What if you did some research, came up with one program and followed through with it, but there was a much better option that you could have gone with and failed to? Anyone can represent themselves, but people usually opt to hire a lawyer because he either knows the law or can figure out what the law is. A lay person can try to research his own case, but I'll garauntee ya he doesn't know how to shepardize, or that "shepardize" is even a word.

Again, I'm not making any distinctions as to merits, and I'm not saying that lawyers don't cost too much money, but Greg is entitled to defend his organization.

Greg,

You have crafted a well thought-out response to this complaint, citing dates, amounts and persons consulted, all the while enclosing the name Jan in quotation marks. Evidently, to show that the name is a pseudonym.

If I were Jan, I would be very upset that a so-called legal firm saw fit to post my financial information on the Internet in breach of EVERY privacy law on the books! And since you do NOT know who Jan is, where did you come up with all these facts and figures?

Either you have grossly breached this persons privacy and all legal ethics or you have fabricated this wild tale you have posted! Either way, you have shot yourself in the foot!

This law firm offers no service that the taxpayer cannot perform himself.

Whether your post above is true or not, I certainly would not want to make any information of mine available to the Law Offices of Roni Lynn Deutch. Who knows what this law firm might do with it and where it might wind up?

To Whom It May Concern:

This correspondence responds to Jans letter posted on your web site on
April 29, 2003. We are grateful for this opportunity to respond to Jans claims. Moreover, we are positive that after the facts set forth below are read, that you and your readers will conclude that Jans claims are unfounded.

Although each of the topics raised in the April 29, 2003 letter is addressed infra, we believe it will be helpful to provide a general overview of our practice, the process and procedures we follow in the tax cases we handle.

We handle only tax cases. We represent taxpayers who have arrearages on their Federal taxes owed to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Our practice consists exclusively of offering and providing two services to taxpayers: the Offer in Compromise (OIC) and the Installment Agreement. It is important to note, that we attempt to keep IRS collection activity at bay in the context of pursuing the OIC or Installment Agreement for each of our clients. Specifically, we notify the IRS that we are preparing an OIC or Installment Agreement for our clients, and request that collection activity be suspended until our clients OIC or Installment Agreement is resolved.

As you are aware, we advertise our services to the public. Taxpayers with tax problems respond to these advertisements by contacting our office. A representative of our office then contacts the inquiring taxpayer to offer more information about our services, and to gather some initial information about the taxpayers tax problem and current financial circumstances. If the taxpayer indicates an interest in retaining the firm during this initial telephone contact or contacts, the representative will gather a substantial amount of financial information in order to determine whether the taxpayers financial circumstances and particular tax problem are such that we can help the taxpayer by negotiating either an OIC or an Installment Agreement.

The extensive client interview which occurs before retention is one key to our success. We have successfully negotiated approximately 12,000 Offers in Compromise on behalf of taxpayers. Our representatives are carefully trained and therefore have a very clear idea about the financial profile that will likely result in a successful OIC. As such, the firm self-selects only those clients on whose behalf the firm believes it will be successful.

If the information gathered over the telephone in the pre-retention interview indicates that we can help the taxpayer, and if the taxpayer indicates that he or she wants to retain our services, then we mail out the first round of forms to be filled out and returned to our office. Once we receive our clients completed financial information, we review and analyze that information to begin working on the OIC or an Installment Agreement as the case may be.

With this general factual background in mind, we have set forth the following specific response regarding Jans unfounded business allegations.

In Jans letter she claims that we failed to provide her with meaningful legal services. This statement is simply untrue. In January 2001, Jan retained our firm to prepare, file and negotiate an OIC with the IRS. An OIC is a program through which taxpayers who owe back taxes to the IRS can settle their outstanding tax liabilities. On January 19, 2001, we sent Jan her initial documents regarding the OIC program and the forms that she needed to prepare, complete, and return to our firm. We received Jans information on February 19, 2001.

On February 20, 2001, we prepared and filed Form 4506 Request for Copy of Transcript or Tax Form with the IRS. Specifically, we requested copies of Jans tax transcripts in order to determine the tax years owed, total amount owing for each year and whether or not the IRS has received all required tax returns from Jan. This information must be received and analyzed by our office in order to determine whether we can proceed with filing Jans OIC immediately, or must ask Jan to file back tax returns.

After thoroughly reviewing Jans financial information we determined that further financial information was required. Specifically, Jan was a partner in a business and we needed verification on this business income to determine her current gross monthly income and monthly expenses. We sent Jan correspondence dated March 2, 2001 requesting information to prepare her Offer in Compromise. Jan sent us correspondence informing us that her business had been dissolved. We contacted Jan on April 11, 2001 to discuss the dissolution of her business. Furthermore, we requested Jan to provide us with a written itemization of her business assets.

On May 17, 2001 Jan contacted our office via telephone and informed us that her financial information had changed. Specifically, Jan obtained new employment. We informed Jan that we would have to verify her new income and expenses before filing her OIC. We requested her to provide us with a copy of her new paycheck stubs. We received the requested information on May 30, 2001. Before we could file Jans OIC she contacted us on
June 14, 2001 via telephone and advised us on changes to her monthly expenses. We requested her to provide us with verification of these new expenses. We received the requested information on July 10, 2003.

After reviewing and analyzing Jans updated financial information we sent her correspondence dated July 25, 2001 requesting her to review and sign her OIC documentation. On August 8, 2001 we prepared and filed Jans OIC with the IRS. We sent Jan correspondence dated August 8, 2001 advising her on this development. Furthermore, this letter informed Jan that once the IRS begins to review her OIC that they would request supporting documentation about her income and expenses.

On November 5, 2001 we received correspondence from the IRS requesting additional information from Jan. We sent Jan correspondence dated November 6, 2001 requesting the information the IRS requested. On November 9, 2001, November 16, 2001 and
November 26, 2001 we prepared and submitted Jans information to the IRS.

When we did not receive a response from the IRS regarding Jans OIC we sent them correspondence dated February 26, 2002 requesting a status update on her OIC. We sent Jan correspondence dated February 26, 2002 advising her on this development.

On March 29, 2002 we received correspondence from the IRS requesting additional information from Jan. We sent Jan correspondence dated April 1, 2002 requesting the information the IRS requested. On April 8, 2002 and April 9, 2002 we prepared and submitted Jans information to the IRS. However, Jan failed to provide all the requested information. We sent Jan a second letter dated April 9, 2002 requesting the missing information. On
April 16, 2002 we prepared and submitted Jans information to the IRS. Again, Jan failed to provide all the requested information. We sent Jan a third letter dated April 16, 2002 requesting the missing information. On April 19, 2002 we prepared and submitted Jans information to the IRS. Once again, Jan failed to provide all the requested information. We sent Jan a fourth letter dated April 19, 2002 requesting the missing information. On April 23, 2002 we prepared and submitted Jans information to the IRS.

After a review of Jans financial information, the Revenue Officer assigned to Jans OIC determined that she had the ability to pay her back tax liability in full. Specifically, the IRS determined that Jans gross monthly income was $7,083.00 and her monthly expenses were $6,111.00. We sent the IRS correspondence dated May 15, 2002 contesting their calculations. Furthermore, we contacted Jan via telephone on May 17, 2002 and informed her on the context of our May 15, 2002 response letter to the IRS. The IRS sent us correspondence dated May 31, 2002 responding to our May 15, 2002 letter. Unfortunately, we were unable to respond to this letter because Jan contacted the IRS directly on June 3, 2002 and revoked our power of attorney.

As you can see from the facts set forth above Jans allegations are without merit. Regrettably, Jan is attempting to assess blame on our office, when, in fact, she should accept responsibility for failing to allow us to thoroughly represent her by revoking our power of attorney.

Additionally, Jan claims that we assured her that her case would be settled with the IRS. We never made any such assurance, nor could we. As a tax law firm we are aware that there are different variables which may change the outcome of a taxpayers case. As such, we fully advised Jan of these different variables and she acknowledged that she understood them.