ComplaintsforJudicial Solutions

• Initial Complaint

  08/05/2022

  Complaint Type:

  Order Issues

  Status:

  Unresolved

  More info

  This is in regards to fraudulent mediation services by the company Judicial Solutions, owned by *********************************. This request was not required by any court of law, but instead requested by myself, *************************, a normal consumer, independently contacting a commercial company for mediation services. Judicial Solutions provided alleged services even though the mediator believed that he had no fully executed agreement or deposit from the other party in hand on November 23, 2021 at 9am. He did not believe to have a signed agreement from the other party involved at the start, during or end of mediation. He also did not have a deposit (as required) from the other party. ********* services should of been cancelled and the reason why to be told to all parties.After alleged mediation, Judicial Solutions failed to provide a fully executed agreement signed by all parties. Now information provided to the mediator and the other party is not protected as being "confidential" and can be challenged in a court of law. Judicial Solutions refuses to provide the agreement signed and dated by the mediator.In summary, Judicial Solutions provided alleged mediation, without notifying me that there was no executed contract, signed by all. To this day, Judicial Solutions has failed to provide a signed agreement by all parties, exposing what was presumed to be confidential information. This information can now be used in any future court proceeding due to the lack of protection from a signed mediation agreement.I paid $650 to Judicial Solutions for mediation services and am requesting a refund due to the services not provided properly as required by the agreement.

  Business response

  08/05/2022

  Tell us why here.

   

  Although the mediator did not sign the contract, a valid oral contract existed between the mediator and the parties.  
  
  The communications during the mediation session are protected under ORS 36.220. 
  
  The fact that the other party paid for the mediation services after the session is not relevant to the validity of the contract or to the confidentiality of the statements. 
  
  Respectfully,
  
  ***************************

  Customer response

  08/18/2022

   
  Complaint: 17661828
  
  I am rejecting this response because:
  
  I have no proof of an executed oral contract that I can show a Judge in a future case.  Without this proof, it provides a method for ********************* future attorney to say that the rules of engagement where not in play and the mediation was invalid.
  
  In addition, the attorney for Mr. ************ ********************** has written in an email that she has "no comment" on the validity of the mediation.  Without an affidavit from her and client agreeing to the mediator's response, it would easily be challenged in any future legal proceeding.
  
  ********************* has had over 5 complaints with the ****** State Bar thus far and wrote a letter to my previous attorney, Mr. ************************** that contained provable untrue statements.  Her record of ethical behavior is far from perfect, compared to my previous attorney, Mr. ************************* (who has practiced law for many more years).  This shows a pattern in how ********************* practices law.  The past is usually an indicator of the future, unless there is a penalty.
  
  Without a written agreement from all parties that an oral contract existed, then ********************* can easily say that the mediation rules of engagement were not agreed to and followed by all parties.  The proof used would be that ********************* failed to follow the requirement of providing a deposit for such services prior to the start of mediation, as stipulated in the written contract.
  
  It is very troubling that the mediator did not sign his company's own contract, which would be required to have a fully executed agreement.  There is no written agreement from both parties that the mediator was not required to sign the Judicial Solutions contract, required for execution.
  
  Finally, the contract provided by Judicial Solutions clearly states that all parties must adhere to the supplied written rules of engagement.  This was not followed.  There is no evidence to support that an oral contract would be supported by all parties, to bypass the written contract.
  
  In summary, the rules of engagement were clearly stated (which included a written agreement by all parties and prepaid deposit). This was not followed and for some mysterious reason, the mediator will not sign the mediation contract -- therefore a proper mediation was not provided by Judicial Solutions and a full refund should be provided for malpractice.
  
  Sincerely,
  
  *************************

   

   

  Business response

  08/23/2022

  I have nothing to add to my prior comments.

   

  ***************************

  Customer response

  09/02/2022

  
  Complaint: 17661828
  
  I am rejecting this response because:

   

  I ordered a service from "Judicial Solutions" that is owned by Retired Judge ********************************** personally.  I believe he is retired, by it is not stated on his agreement, so I do not know this to be factual.  Perhaps this is a form of misrepresentation, but that is not my complaint.
  
  The attached cover letter from "Judicial Solutions" outlines the requirements for ********** Services" to commence.
  
  Also attached is an email from the other party, Mr. ************ writing that he would participate and arrangements for the initial deposit were made by his attorney, **********************  
  
  On the day of the alleged **********" provided by "Judicial Solutions" it appears someone lied.  According the email attachment, Mr. *********** wrote "Yes I signed and my attorney is making deposit on my behalf."  This was on November 16, 2021 (7 days before the alleged **********" was to occur).
  
  The Mediator, ********************************** said on the record that ********************* was complaining that she had not been paid by Mr. ************  This contradicts the email I received from Mr. *********************** this knowledge and to ensure no bias was shown to either party for not fulfilling the initial requirements for **********" -- the owner of Judicial Solutions, ********************************** should of cancelled the session as soon as he was aware of the ack of payment.  His requirements were to have a signed agreement and a deposit (from both parties) prior to the start of **********."  Nothing in his written agreement indicates that there are other verbal agreements in play.
  
  The day of the alleged Mediation, ********************************* believed he did not have a signature from Mr. *********** and **********************  In addition, his signature was absent from the agreement.  
  
  To summarize:

  1.  It is my understanding that all 3 parties (including Judicial Solutions) were to sign the agreement in order for it to be executed.  Without the signature of the service provider, it would seem to be very easy to say that the **********" did not occur or was improperly held.  I remain puzzled why the Mediator refused to sign his own agreement.

  2.  The other party's attorney, ********************** told the Mediator that she had not been paid the deposit, which was then relayed to my attorney.  If one were to follow the agreement set forth by Judicial Solutions, the session should had been cancelled.  Instead Judicial Solutions showed favoritism towards ********************* by allowing her and her client to not be required to adhere to the terms.  My attorney promptly payed the deposit and signed the agreement before the due date.

  3.  Either Mr. *********** or his attorney, ********************** lied regarding the deposit (according to the email sent to me and the Mediators own comments).
  

  I do not have a degree in law, but it would seem quite obvious that a written agreement cannot be executed unless it is signed by all parties.  In addition, if there are additional terms in the agreement, they should be required from both parties, regardless of past business relationships.  This shows a bias towards one party and one could then infer that that the Mediator was not acting as a neutral party, which is required for a ********** Session" to occur fairly.
  

  Sincerely,
  
  *************************
  
  (2 attachments included with this statement:  "********************pdf" and ********** Requirements.pdf")

   

   

   

*Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business. ↩