Product: Checking or savings account

I am writing in request immediate intervention from CFPB. This letter serves as a formal request for CashApp compliance to conduct a comprehensive review of fact-based documentation provided and request for additional scrutiny and a reassertion of my request for a refund of {$800.00}, a sum representing charges for purported legal services. This Appeal concerns the legal services provided by XXXX, XXXX And XXXX, in the amount of {$800.00}, which are currently the subject of ongoing litigation due to allegations of Attorney Malpractice. I appreciate the due diligence performed by your investigation team. However, I believe that critical aspects of my claim may not have been fully considered, which has led to the conclusion that no error occurred. 
XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX denial of my claim disregards the clear breach of the contractual Agreement and the substandard level of professional service rendered. I assert that the services for which I was billed were either not provided or grossly inadequate, failing to meet the requisite standards of legal practice, as codified in XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, particularly Rules 19-301.1 ( Competence ) and 19-301.5 ( Fees ). 
The services billed and the resulting charges are incongruent with the actual legal assistance received. This discrepancy is evident in multiple facets of XXXX XXXX  representation, including but not limited to, a significant failure in upholding communication standards, inadequate legal argumentation, and a marked deviation from the agreed-upon scope of representation. 

Cash App decision to deny my claim is untenable and overlooks the fundamental principles of justice and equitable treatment. Therefore, I demand a reevaluation of my claim and immediate processing of the refund owed to me, given the irrefutable evidence of XXXX XXXX non-performance and palpable breach of our contractual terms. 

I. Legal Malpractice and Ethical Violations This formal Appeal regarding the refusal of my claim is rooted in the professional inadequacies and ethical violations of XXXX XXXX, XXXX, as outlined below. 
Breach of Professional Standards : Under Maryland Rule 19-301.1, an Attorney is obliged to provide competent representation. Regrettably, XXXX XXXX 's services significantly deviated from these legal and ethical benchmarks. Instances of inadequate legal strategizing, lack of thorough case preparation, and a failure to provide knowledgeable legal counsel were evident, all of which undermined the integrity of my legal representation.

2. Financial Misconduct : In accordance with Maryland Rule 19-301.5, legal fees should be reasonable and transparently conveyed to the client. XXXX XXXX 's billing for services that were either unprovided or unauthorized by me represents a clear violation of this rule. XXXX XXXX charged me for services that were either not rendered or not authorized by me, constituting financial misconduct. The overcharging and billing discrepancies reflect financial misconduct that further exacerbates my grievances. 
Negligence in Representation : Drawing on the precedent set by XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XXXX ), it is evident that XXXX XXXX 's representation was marred by negligence. This negligence manifested in a failure to advocate effectively on my behalf, resulting in a detrimental impact on my case 's outcome. The lack of due diligence and professional attentiveness in managing my legal affairs was not only disappointing but also materially harmful. 

XXXX. Ethical Violations : Pertinent breaches in confidentiality and fiduciary duty, as delineated by Maryland Rule 19-301.6 and Rule 19-301.7, were apparent in XXXX XXXX 's conduct. The unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information and the failure to prioritize my interests over others are clear ethical breaches. These actions not only compromised my legal position but also eroded the foundational trust essential in an attorney-client relationship. 

Please be advised that non-compliance with my refund request, due to Attorney Malpractice, may place XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in violation of specific Maryland banking regulations and statutes. As the institution managing the financial transactions related to these services, continued refusal to process the refund might be viewed as an endorsement or acceptance of such malpractice. 

These regulations and statutes include, but are not limited to, the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), which requires financial institutions to engage in fair and equitable practices, especially in situations involving professional misconduct. Additionally, the Maryland Uniform Commercial Code ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 1-101 et seq. ) mandates financial institutions to exercise due diligence in financial transactions. 

Furthermore, it is pertinent to highlight the applicability of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E in this context. These regulations encompass a range of electronic fund transfers that authorize a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. This includes transactions from various types of consumer accounts, specifically demand deposit ( checking ), savings, or other asset accounts established primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, as well as prepaid accounts as defined by Regulation E.

The term electronic fund transfer encompasses any transfer of funds initiated through electronic means such as terminals, telephones, computers, or magnetic tapes for the purpose of authorizing a financial institution to debit or credit a consumer 's account. Therefore, this regulation covers person-to-person ( P2P ) payments, mobile payments, debit card transactions, ACH transfers, and other electronic transfers to or from consumer accounts. These regulations are crucial in ensuring consumer protection in electronic financial transactions, making their applicability to this case both relevant and significant. 

In the matter concerning Attorney, XXXX XXXX, there was a blatant disregard for the provisions of the Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act ( HIPAA ), specifically outlined in Public Law No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936. This law mandates strict confidentiality and security measures for handling personal health information. Additionally, the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health ( HITECH ) Act, part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of XXXX, Title XIII, Subtitle D, extends these requirements. It directs entities, especially those not covered under HIPAA like certain health record vendors and service providers, to notify individuals and relevant authorities in instances of data breaches or unauthorized disclosures of unsecured health information. Attorney XXXX 's actions, involving the disclosure of my PHI without explicit consent, appear to contravene these federal regulations, constituting a serious legal and ethical violation. 

Failure to process my refund request in the context of attorney XXXX XXXX 's malpractice may lead to serious consequences. Such inaction might be perceived as a lack of due diligence on your part, potentially exposing Cash App to allegations of complicity in unethical practices. This scenario risks both reputational harm and legal scrutiny, especially in light of potential violations of consumer protection laws. An immediate and fair resolution to this matter is crucial, not only for my interests but also for upholding the Cash App commitment to ethical banking standards. 

Given that the transactions in question fall under the purview of these regulations, I urge Cash App to reassess my refund request with this regulatory framework in mind, ensuring compliance and upholding my rights as a consumer. A prompt reassessment of this situation is not merely a matter of fulfilling fiduciary duties ; it aligns with the stringent standards of legal and ethical banking practices. Moreover, it is a crucial step in addressing the purported professional malfeasance. 

XXXX. Rebuttal to Merchants Response to Chargeback The documentation provided by XXXX XXXX, or XXXX, XXXX, and XXXX, XXXX, such as the Fee Agreement, detailed invoices, court transcript, and Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, fails to adequately address the central issues raised in my claim. The documentation furnished fails to establish the legitimacy of the transaction under dispute. The mere presence of a Fee Agreement, Invoices, and even a Court Transcript does not conclusively prove that the services charged for were rendered or that they met the standard of care contractually promised. It is essential that each charge be demonstrably linked to a corresponding, competently rendered legal service. Absent this, the transaction 's validity is rightly called into question, warranting a thorough review and appropriate remedial action. Under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act ( Md. Code Ann., Com. Law II 13-101 et seq. ), transactions must be fair and transparent to protect the consumer from unfair or deceptive trade practices. Additionally, banks have a fiduciary duty to their clients to act with care, honesty, and diligence as set forth under the Maryland Uniform Fiduciary Access to Digital Assets Act ( Md. Code Ann., Est. & Trusts 4-501 et seq. ). These laws mandate that financial institutions maintain the integrity of transactions and uphold the trust placed in them by their clients. If a transaction, such as the legal charges in question, lacks a valid basis for its execution or fails to meet the agreed-upon standards, it may be deemed invalid, prompting necessary rectifications to align with these legal standards. 

The documents furnished by XXXX XXXX, while procedural, do not substantively validate the quality or the effectiveness of the legal services rendered. My concerns revolve around the actual execution and competence of the services provided, which I contend have not met the professional and ethical standards mandated under Maryland law. Therefore, these documents, in their current form, do not counterbalance or negate the assertions of malpractice and inadequate service that form the basis of my chargeback request. 

Fee Agreement and Invoices : While the invoices document the services billed, they do not reflect the actual quality or effectiveness of the services provided. There are notable discrepancies in services listed in the invoices compared to what was rendered, indicating a significant misalignment between billing and service delivery. 

Court Transcript : My statement in the court proceeding, as referenced in your communications, requires contextualization. The court transcript holds little weight in substantiating the quality of legal services rendered. Statements made within it are not incontrovertible evidence of satisfactory service, as they fail to capture the multifaceted and evolving nature of client satisfaction and the effectiveness of legal representation over the entire course of proceedings. 

Attorney 's Fees Affidavit : The submission of an Attorney 's Fees Affidavit, while procedurally correct, does not inherently signify fulfillment of our Service Agreement. There were specific service expectations outlined in our Agreement which were not met, despite the Affidavit. 

Transaction Authorization : Although I authorized the transaction, it was predicated on the assumption that the services provided would align with our agreed terms. The services rendered were materially different from those I had authorized, both in scope and quality. 

XXXX. Conclusion Please be advised that the issues in question concerning the requested refund are currently under litigation. This matter is not merely a dispute over service satisfaction but a subject of legal proceedings, underscoring its gravity. Prompt and thorough attention to this refund request is not only appropriate but imperative. I expect that this matter will be addressed with the urgency and seriousness it warrants.