Consumer complaint received 2026-05-04 00:00:00
Product: Debt or credit management — Debt settlement
Issue: Didn't provide services promised — 
Company: Consumer Legal Group, P.C.
State: FL

Complaint narrative:
In XX/XX/XXXX, I was solicited by a sales representative named XXXX XXXX, using the email address XXXX, operating under the name " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' and the entity XXXX XXXX. The " XXXX XXXX XXXX '' branding is misleading- it is not affiliated with any government agency or any of the three nationwide credit bureaus - yet the name implied official authority during the sales process. XXXX XXXX represented that signing with Consumer Legal Group , P.C . ( " XXXX '' ) would resolve my two XXXX XXXX credit card accounts. At the time of this solicitation, both XXXX XXXX accounts were current and in good standing. Neither account was past due. I had no missed or late payments. I was not seeking debt settlement, debt relief, or protection from collection. I was solicited while my accounts were performing normally, and I was persuaded that engaging XXXX would produce a better outcome than continuing to pay my accounts as agreed. I was instructed by the sales representative to stop making payments to XXXX XXXX on both accounts immediately upon enrollment. I followed this instruction in reliance on the representation that XXXX would resolve the accounts on my behalf. I signed the Services Agreement and Limited Power of Attorney with XXXX on XX/XX/XXXX ( XXXX ID XXXX ). The signing was facilitated by XXXX XXXX through XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX electronic signature system ( XXXX ). The completion certificate identifies the sending entity as XXXX XXXX, not XXXX. To my knowledge, I never spoke with a licensed attorney at XXXX before, during, or after signing. The entire sales process was conducted by a non-attorney lead-generation operation marketing under a name designed to suggest credit-bureau authority . The two XXXX XXXX credit card accounts enrolled with XXXX had a combined balance of approximately {$28000.00} at enrollment. The contracted payment schedule required 24 monthly payments of {$500.00} ( final payment {$500.00} ), totaling {$12000.00}, drafted via ACH from my checking account from XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX. I made these payments as scheduled. XXXX XXXX contract explicitly states that these payments are attorney fees, not funds applied to my creditors but this disclosure was buried in the signing packet and not made meaningfully clear during the sales process. The XXXX contract itself contains material internal contradictions that demonstrate the deceptive nature of the engagement. Page 5 of the Services Agreement states, " XXXX is not a settlement company. '' But the same contract repeatedly describes services that are, in substance, settlement services : it describes XXXXXXXX XXXX role as resolving and invalidating debts, negotiating with creditors, and references " debt modification settlements negotiated by XXXX. '' The contract simultaneously claims XXXX does not settle debts and describes XXXX 's work as negotiating settlements. This contradiction was not explained or reconciled at signing. The Program Acknowledgments ( separately initialed ) state that monthly payments are for XXXX attorney fees only, do not accumulate toward settlement, and will not be used to pay creditors. While these disclosures appear in the document, the practical effect - that I would be paying {$12000.00} in attorney fees while my creditors received nothing for two years was not made clear in a way a reasonable consumer could understand at the point of sale, particularly given the active instruction to stop paying current creditors. From XX/XX/XXXX through XX/XX/XXXX, I paid XXXX {$500.00} per month via ACH, totaling approximately {$11000.00} in actual payments. During this 22-month period, XXXX produced no resolution of either XXXX XXXX account . XXXXXXXX XXXX only documented activity consisted of sending generic debt validation letters. No settlement was negotiated. No reduction in balance was achieved. No payment was made to XXXX XXXX on my behalf. No litigation was filed by or against me. The accounts remain unresolved. As a direct and foreseeable result of the instruction to stop paying current accounts, both XXXX XXXX accounts were charged off in XX/XX/XXXX, within approximately 60 days of my enrollment with XXXX. Both accounts now report on all three credit bureaus as " closed, charged-off, profit and loss write-off. '' My credit score dropped substantially as a direct consequence. The charge-offs will remain on my credit reports until approximately XX/XX/XXXX. I am a XXXX XXXX XXXX and a military veteran. The credit damage resulting from following XXXXXXXX XXXX instructions may have implications for my federal employment and security clearance. The Federal Trade Commission has previously taken action against debt-relief operators who targeted veterans in materially similar circumstances, including a documented case in which a veteran 's credit score dropped from the high XXXX to the XXXX after a debt-relief firm instructed him to stop paying his credit cards, nearly costing him the security clearance required for his job. My situation closely mirrors that pattern. I terminated payments to XXXX in XX/XX/XXXX after concluding that no resolution had been achieved despite nearly two years of monthly payments. The two XXXX XXXX accounts remain charged off and unresolved. I now need to negotiate directly with XXXX XXXX to settle accounts that were current and performing before I was solicited by XXXX XXXX and enrolled with XXXX. Consumer Legal Group , P.C . holds a " XXXX '' rating with the XXXX XXXX XXXX and is not accredited by the XXXX. Multiple XXXX complaints describe a pattern identical to my experience : consumers with current accounts were instructed by sales representatives to stop paying their creditors, paid XXXX monthly fees for extended periods, and saw no resolution while their credit deteriorated. The structure of this operation non-attorney lead generators marketing under misleading names like " XXXX XXXX XXXX, '' consumers signed up via electronic signature without ever speaking to a licensed attorney, contracts containing internal contradictions about whether the firm settles debts, and consumers instructed to stop paying current accounts appears designed to extract attorney fees from consumers who would not have engaged the firm if the actual nature of the service had been disclosed clearly at the point of sale. Companies involved : Consumer Legal Group, P.C., located in XXXX, NJ ; XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. Responsible attorney : XXXX XXXX, XXXX. XXXX XXXX, sales representative XXXX XXXX, email XXXX, marketing under the name " XXXX XXXX XXXX. ''

Company response to consumer: Untimely response