Very recently, one of my clients had 2 civil rights complaints filed against them with an enforcement agency by the same employee.  Each complaint was a few months apart and were sort of “kitchen sink” complaints.  That is, the employee primarily complained of disability discrimination though their complaint included discrimination on the basis of many other protected classes too.

One of the problems that arose, on our end, was that we never responded to the complaints in a timely manner in the first place; I won’t explain why this happened but it did.  Although our delays had no bearing on whether the actual alleged discrimination occurred, in my opinion, it’s never a good idea to just blow-off a regulatory & enforcement agency (for more on how to deal with & respond to regulatory agency complaints, see this post). Nevertheless, after we officially responded, by denying all charges, & once we got the settlement process going, it took about 2 weeks from issuing our response to reaching a $1,250 settlement for both complaints.

This is the 3rd employment civil rights complaint I’ve settled in the $600 range over the past few months.  Here’s information on the earlier (September) complaint.

The rationale for settling all 3 of the complaints instead of going through hearings or trials is that it’s cheaper to settle in the $600 range than it is to pay my fees & lose a lot of time off from work preparing for & attending hearings.

We enlisted his help in some sticky IDES, FLSA, DOL and EEOC issues. Having over 30 years business experience myself (including 12 in human resources), I can recognize his “wisdom” as well as “talent.” We believe Chuck really does want to help his clients achieve the best result in the most cost effective way possible. He also has the right perspective on tactics and objectives when dealing with this often emotional area. At this point…we can only say that Chuck has become indispensable to us and most definitely… “A good guy to have on our team.”

Ken Battee
CEO

J. Anthony Smith
Executive Vice President

A.P. DELI RESTAURANT GROUP

Conrad from Avvo said,

December 5, 2010 @ 10:26 am

Charles – not every lawyer appreciates the transparency that Avvo has brought to the legal industry, yet this is exactly what consumers want and deserve. This is why we will not remove profiles from Avvo. Our commitment to transparency has made us the number one legal directory in the world.

I’m disappointed to read your recommendation responding to Avvo’s transparency with fabrications. I would strongly caution any lawyer against deliberately and proactively misrepresenting their background anywhere – on a resume, at a cocktail party or on Avvo. The professional ramifications of this highly unethical behavior are severe.

Finally, if you are having trouble accessing your account, emailcustomercare@avvo.com for assistance.

Regards,
Conrad Saam

First, I’d like to thank Conrad and Avvo for responding.  However, they completely miss the point.  They argue that their system provides transparency to consumers.  To an extent, they’re right.  However, to the extent that I, and others, believe that their ratings system is biased against solo and small firms, they’re wrong (to read my arguments concerning this bias just search “Avvo” in the search box on this blog).  Moreover, there’s little transparency to a system that entices attorneys to “claim” their “profile” but doesn’t let them “unclaim” it.

Moreover, Conrad claims that there could be severe ethical ramifications for my suggestion about how to game Avvo by spiking a profile by either deflating it to zero or inflating it to ten.  I also find this contention disingenuous.  If I load my own profile with nonsensical negative information, therefore lowering my score to zero and rendering my rating incredible, how is this an ethical violation?  By making myself look ridiculous on a for profit and biased rating site like Avvo what ethical rules am I violating and how am I jeopardizing my license?  Beats me.

As I’ve said numerous times, I don’t care if my profile is removed (or not) from Avvo.  I just want to “unclaim” my profile.  It’s disingenuous for Avvo to claim transparency when they don’t explain that once you “claim” your profile it’s impossible to “unclaim” it.  Moreover, this isn’t a level playing field for all attorneys and consumers using Avvo to find attorneys.

My advice to Avvo is simple:  Allow attorneys to “unclaim” their profile.  In my mind, whether or not I’m on Avvo is superflous in light of the “claimed” profile indication, and Avvo’s refusal to permit attorneys to “unclaim” the profile.

Besides, the valid and usual reasons of maintaining the confidentiality and credibility of negotiations and dispute resolution, and other evidentiary concerns, there are additional reasons to not get into specifics.

A client’s competitor or adversary may be able to identify a client by recognizing the facts or circumstances described, and they may use this information against my client.

Furthermore, client advocacy involves representing businesses before government agencies like the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and other similar federal, state and local agencies.  Plus, a lot of this work involves dealing with difficult employees, their representatives and other third parties.  Many of these third parties can be really difficult to deal with due to a lack of transparency in their conduct and labyrinthian rules which usually leads to seemingly arbitrary, illogical and capricious decisions.  In fact, sometimes a client and I can win or lose a dispute, and we may not even be clear as to why we won or lost.  This recently happened with an Illinois case where the judgment went against my client, but the monetary penalties assessed against my client were reduced by 99%!  We don’t know why, and won’t inquire lest we learn that they made a mathematical mistake.

Consequently, in order for my clients and me to maintain productive relationships with all of these parties, I’ve decided not to publicize in detail about the various disputes that we get into.   This way, I don’t risk vindictiveness against my clients due to exposure to their competitors, public embarrassment, vilification and the loss of bureaucratic anonymity.

In business, vindictiveness by third parties, including government agencies, employee side attorneys and unions, is crucial to avoid.  Some may argue that government personnel and other parties such as union representatives won’t be vindictive towards  clients who are small to medium sized businesses, or to solo practitioners like me.  Agencies and other parties won’t care about us because we’re too small to consider.  This isn’t true.

Even in a huge market such as Chicago, the labor and employment law community is relatively small and people get to know one another.  Maintaining a good reputation is crucial for effective client representation.  Consequently, even though I may aggressively, even zealously, pursue my client’s interests, and clients are willing to publicly testify to my ability to successfully represent them, I’m extremely careful as to how I discuss client matters on a public website.  I don’t want to represent a client and find out that my discussing of their case or dispute was detrimental to them.

On the other hand, when giving public seminars and workshops, I’m very candid about my dealings with these agencies and other attorneys.  Although I’m very careful about naming names, or divulging any identifying information, in some instances, I’ve been known to be openly critical of certain identified organizations.  If you’d like to find out how candid I’ve been, feel free to attend one of my seminars or contact me directly.

Of course, as I become more omnipotent and dominant in my field, I may change my position and use all of the information in my possession to crush everyone!  Kind of a Dwight Schrute thing I have going on!

For obvious reasons, this will give prospective clients and readers a more objective sense of what I’m about and how I conduct myself as a professional.  In short, I emphasize customer service as much as my legal skills.

Of course, I have to qualify these testimonials with the following disclaimer:  All statements on this page are purely the opinion of each writer.  No one has been compensated directly or indirectly for their opinion.  These opinions aren’t intended as legal advice or guidance nor are they a guarantee or promise of Charles Krugel’s future performance.  The sole purpose for these opinions are for marketing and consumer education.