Report: #1447284

Complaint Review: Pete Rowe Attorney - Dallas Texas

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: TH — Addison United States
  • Pete Rowe Attorney 15150 Preston Road Dallas, Texas United States

Pete Rowe Attorney Law Office of Pete Rowe Law Office of Pete Rowe PC Pete Rowe Dallas Attorney Did Not Fulfill Terms of the Agreement/Committed Negligence and Breach of Attorney/Client Confidentiality/Harassment and Intimidation/Defamation of Character Dallas Texas

*REBUTTAL Individual responds: Nothing True About This Review

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

In May 2018 I hired Pete Rowe to handle a civil legal matter for me which he grossly mishandled and violated several rules of professional conduct that are laid out by the Texas Bar Association. 

Mr. Rowe made several mistakes on the legal document that he agreed to draft and mail for me. He changed the agreed-upon settlement amount without prior discussion with me, failed to sign the letter and failed to send to the agreed upon parties. When I brought this to Mr. Rowe's attention, he became very defensive and irate. 

Mr. Rowe recently emailed offensive photos to me in an attempt to intentionally harass, upset and intimidate me. Photos that I believe he also sent to the potential defendant in my case - an intentional breach of confidentiality. Further damaging implications of Mr. Rowe's negligent actions relating to my case at this point are yet unknown since my case is still pending.

Mr. Rowe violated several Texas Bar Association professional rules of conduct that he swore an oath to abide by when he became an attorney; namely - breach of attorney/client confidentiality, breach of communication, breach of competent and diligent representation, and gross negligence. 

He also refused to return my file when I requested that it be returned to me and became argumentative/aggressive with me on the phone when I tried to make arrangements with him to get my file.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 06/13/2018 10:44 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/pete-rowe-attorney/dallas-texas-75248/pete-rowe-attorney-law-office-of-pete-rowelaw-office-of-pete-rowe-pcpete-rowe-dallas-at-1447284. 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. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

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

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 REBUTTAL Individual responds

Nothing True About This Review

AUTHOR: Defamed Attorney - (United States)

POSTED: Monday, July 30, 2018

The attorney was hired to draft a demand letter to the client's former landlord.  After an email exchange on May 28, 2018 concerning the terms of the client’s demand, the client approved the letter on May 29, 2018 and the letter was sent to the client’s former landlord as agreed.  The mailing of the letter to the landlord completed the task the attorney was hired to perform.  Nonetheless, attorney provided additional services at no additional cost to the client.  This is in keeping with the attorney’s conservative billing philosophy.

Client was pleased at the time and wanted the attorney to continue to represent her and sue her former landlord.  However, the attorney did not believe that the facts supported the lawsuit the client was urging.  Rather than simply take the client’s money to file a lawsuit the attorney did not evaluate as a strong claim, the attorney decided to not continue representation.  This is in keeping with attorney’s moral and ethical obligations to the client and the public.

An email chain shows that the attorney returned the client’s file to her within one day following the client’s request. The attorney was prompt in returning the file and diligent in communicating with the client about her matter and the status of discussions with her former landlord.  Between May 29, 2018 and June 12, 2018, there were no fewer than 33 emails exchanged between the attorney and this client.  There were also several phone calls exchanged during that same time period.  This level of communication between an attorney and client is exceptional and demonstrates the falsity of the allegation that the attorney did not communicate with the client.  Moreover, the attorney did not charge the client for a single email or phone call.

As is consistent with this review, the allegation that the attorney became angry or irate is simply false.  The attorney has great relationships with his clients and wants to see his clients prosper and do well.

The client was pleased with the attorney and began defaming him online only after the attorney declined to file suit against the landlord. The attorney did not believe the facts supported a suit; and being mindful of his ethical obligations to the client and public, the attorney decided to not file what he believed to be a poorly supported lawsuit. The attorney chose to honestly evaluate the matter for the client rather than take her money for a lawsuit that the attorney did not evaluate as having a strong chance of success. Most clients appreciate that sort of behavior and this attorney will continue to be frank, open, and honest with his clients.  If you want an attorney who will give you an honest evaluation of your case, then the attorney who is being unfairly maligned in this review will provide you with one.

Respond to this report!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now