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

One of the worst attorneys in Dallas.
I believe that Mr. Rowe violated the Rules of Professional Conduct in several ways and he is currently under review by the Texas State Bar.

I do not recommend his legal services. Statue of limitations is still active Mr. Rowe. AND..I have ALL of the derogatory emails you sent to me.

Sometime during the time you were drafting my demand letter, you decided to look me up on Facebook and came across a profile which you believed to be mine. It is not my profile, and never has been. This person with the same name as mine lives in Arkansas. This person looks nothing like me. You should have realized this after having just met me in person at your office. But, instead of verifying this information, you developed a belligerent, angry and harassing tone with me in your emails. You said, in summary, that based on my "profile" that I deserved what I got. Y

ou assumed this person was me, and started sending me profane images and links to this person's Facebook. Even after I told you in an email that this was not my Facebook profile, it did not deter you from belittling me and allowing bias to take over in representing me in my case. Because of your bias, you made several mistakes in the demand letter that we agreed upon when I hired you and your legal missteps not only caused the other side to not concede to our demands as agreed, it also caused me financial harm. You also should have withdrawn as my attorney, but you never did. These are severe violations of the Professional Rules of Conduct for attorneys.

Again, as stated before, we will leave it to the State Bar to decide if they take disciplinary action against you or disbar you altogether, so that you can never harm or abuse another female client ever again.10/28/20

Update 10/28/20: Mr. Rowe: Your response is extremely irresponsible and negligent, and I have decided to pursue my complaint with the Texas State Board. As you well know, because of your negligence in handling my case, I disputed the amount I paid you with my bank, and my bank agreed with me and gave me a credit in June 2018. You refuse to admit that you had me confused with someone else and allowed this to cloud your judgment when you responded to the other party, and now you have outright lied on Google to try and protect your "integrity" and have harmed my character.

Over the last year, you have been stalking me online and looking at my LinkedIn profile and this needs to stop immediately. I urge you to seek some counseling and to stop taking advantage of and harassing your female clients with false statements.

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.