Consumer complaint received 2024-04-04
Product: Credit card — General-purpose credit card or charge card
Issue: Other features, terms, or problems — Other problem
Company: Suttell, Hammer & White, P.S (CA)

I am writing to file a formal complaint against Suttell and Hammer, P.S. regarding their involvement in the initiation of a debt collection lawsuit against me. It has come to my attention that Suttell and Hammer knowingly pursued legal action against me in violation of the terms outlined in the arbitration agreement governing the disputed debt.

I was served with a lawsuit initiated by Suttell and Hammer on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX alleging non-payment of a debt related to a credit card account. As the legal representative of XXXX, XXXX Suttell and Hammer, P.S. is expected to adhere to ethical standards and legal obligations in their practice of law. 

Upon review of the original credit card agreement provided by XXXX, XXXX, it was discovered that the agreement contains a binding arbitration clause. This clause explicitly stipulates that disputes arising from the credit card account must be resolved through arbitration, thereby superseding the right to pursue litigation in court. 

Despite the clear provisions outlined in the arbitration agreement, Suttell and Hammer, P.S. proceeded to file a lawsuit against me, thereby disregarding the agreed-upon dispute resolution process. This blatant disregard for the arbitration clause constitutes a breach of contract and raises serious ethical and legal concerns regarding Suttell and Hammer 's conduct.

As a result of Suttell and Hammer 's actions, I have been subjected to unnecessary legal proceedings and expenses, as well as undue stress and inconvenience. Suttell and Hammer 's failure to uphold their legal obligations and respect the terms of the arbitration agreement has resulted in harm and damage to me as the defendant in this matter.

Furthermore, it is evident that Suttell and Hammer, P.S. knowingly pursued litigation against me despite being aware of the arbitration agreement governing the disputed debt. This deliberate disregard for contractual obligations and ethical standards is unacceptable and warrants appropriate action.

The California Rules of Professional Conduct set forth guidelines governing the ethical conduct of attorneys admitted to practice law in California, pursuing litigation in contravention of a binding arbitration agreement violate several provisions of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. Here are some relevant rules that Suttell and Hammer 's actions may have contravened : Rule 1.2 Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer : This rule stipulates that a lawyer must abide by a client 's decisions concerning the objectives of representation, subject to certain limitations imposed by law and the lawyer 's professional obligations. Initiating litigation against me in violation of a binding arbitration agreement may exceed the scope of the client 's objectives and contravene their authority. 

XXXX XXXX  XXXX  Toward the Tribunal : Attorneys are required to be truthful and candid in their representations to courts and other tribunals. Knowingly initiating legal proceedings without disclosing the existence or significance of a binding arbitration agreement violates this rule by omitting material information from the court. 

XXXX  XXXX Truthfulness in Statements to Others : Attorneys must not knowingly make false statements of fact or omit material information when dealing with third parties. Filing a lawsuit without disclosing the existence of a binding arbitration agreement constitutes an omission of material information. 

XXXX XXXX Misconduct : This rule prohibits attorneys from engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Pursuing litigation in violation of a binding arbitration agreement is a form of deceit or misrepresentation, particularly if the attorney is aware of the agreement 's existence and significance. 

Pursuing litigation in violation of a binding arbitration agreement raises ethical concerns and potentially violate professional standards set by the bar association. Here are some potential areas where Suttell and Hammer 's actions may have contravened legal and ethical guidelines : Breach of Contract : Pursuing litigation in contravention of a binding arbitration agreement constitute a breach of contract, as the agreement between the parties explicitly stipulates that disputes must be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. This failure to honor contractual obligations may raise ethical concerns regarding the firm 's adherence to professional standards.

Ethical Obligations : Attorneys are expected to adhere to ethical principles and professional standards set forth by their state bar association. This includes acting in the best interests of their clients and upholding the integrity of the legal profession. Knowingly initiating legal proceedings that violate a binding arbitration agreement may be viewed as a breach of these ethical obligations.

Misrepresentation : Suttell and Hammer represented to the court that arbitration was not required or failed to disclose the existence of the arbitration agreement, this may constitute misrepresentation or a failure to provide accurate information to the court. Such actions could undermine the integrity of the legal process and raise ethical concerns. 

Client Representation : Attorneys have a duty to provide competent representation to their clients and to act in accordance with their clients ' instructions and best interests. If Suttell and Hammer initiated litigation against me without fully informing their client XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX of the existence and implications of the arbitration agreement, this may raise questions about the adequacy of their representation and adherence to professional standards.