Lawyers map
>12.0k
experienced lawyers
Filter by
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
Find Your Lawyer
By Practice Area
-
Business
-
Litigation
-
Real Estate
-
Intellectual Property
-
Personal Injury
-
Government
-
Criminal Defense
-
Civil Rights
-
Estate Planning
-
Appeals
-
Family Law
-
Consumer Protection
-
Insurance
-
Tax
-
Immigration
-
Medical Malpractice
-
Probate
-
Class Action
-
Car Accident
-
Child Support
-
Lawsuit / Dispute
-
Entertainment
-
Workers Compensation
-
Wrongful Death
-
Child Custody
-
Mediation
-
Elder Law
-
Trusts
-
Domestic Violence
-
Juvenile Law
-
Social Security & Disability
-
Financial Markets And Services
-
Debt Collection
-
Discrimination
-
Bankruptcy
-
Foreclosure
-
Wrongful Termination
-
Sexual Harassment
-
Adoption
-
Copyright Application
-
Sex Crime
-
Debt Settlement
-
Divorce
-
Federal Crime
-
Cannabis Law
-
Employment / Labor
-
Construction
-
Credit Repair
-
Life Insurance
-
Admiralty / Maritime
-
Drug Crime
-
Contracts
-
Education Law
Discover the ideal lawyer
You can search a lawyer by practice area, lawyer name, city, state, or ZIP code
FAQs
Questions? We have answers
Top Questions to Ask a Lawyer
When meeting with a lawyer for the first time, it's important to ask the right questions to understand their expertise and determine if they're the right fit for your legal needs. Here are some top questions to consider:
-
What experience do you have with cases similar to mine?
Ensure the lawyer has relevant experience in the specific area of law pertaining to your case. -
How do you charge for your services, and what are the estimated costs?
Understand the fee structure, including hourly rates, flat fees, retainer fees, and any additional expenses. -
What potential outcomes can I expect from my case?
While no lawyer can guarantee results, they can provide an assessment of possible scenarios based on their experience. -
What is your approach to handling cases like mine?
Learn about their strategy, whether they prefer negotiation, mediation, or litigation. -
Who will be working on my case?
Find out if the lawyer will handle your case personally or delegate tasks to other attorneys or paralegals. -
How will you communicate with me throughout the process?
Establish expectations for updates, preferred communication methods, and response times. -
What is the likely timeline for resolving my case?
Get an estimate of how long the process may take from start to finish. -
Do you have references from past clients?
Testimonials or references can provide insight into the lawyer's professionalism and effectiveness. -
What are the strengths and weaknesses of my case?
Understanding potential challenges helps you prepare and sets realistic expectations. -
Are there alternative ways to solve my legal problem?
Discuss options like mediation, arbitration, or settlement to resolve the issue efficiently.
How to Check the Credibility of a Lawyer
Before hiring a lawyer, it's crucial to verify their credibility and ensure they're qualified to handle your case:
-
Verify Their License:
Check with your state's bar association to confirm the lawyer is licensed and in good standing. -
Experience and Specialization:
Ensure the lawyer specializes in the area of law relevant to your case. -
Disciplinary Record:
Look up any history of disciplinary actions or complaints through the state bar association. -
Client Reviews and Testimonials:
Read reviews on legal directories like Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, or Google to gauge client satisfaction. -
Professional Memberships:
Membership in professional organizations or specialty bar associations can indicate a commitment to their field. -
Awards and Recognitions:
Honors from reputable organizations reflect expertise and a positive reputation. -
Consultation Assessment:
Use the initial consultation to evaluate their communication skills, responsiveness, and willingness to address your concerns. -
Ask for References:
A credible lawyer should be willing to provide references from past clients.
What Should I Prepare for My First Consultation?
To make the most of your initial meeting with a lawyer, come prepared with:
-
Relevant Documents:
Bring all documents related to your case, such as contracts, correspondence, legal notices, court papers, or evidence. -
Written Summary:
Prepare a concise written summary of your situation, including key dates, events, and involved parties. -
List of Questions:
Write down any questions you have about your case, the legal process, or the lawyer's experience. -
Financial Information:
If applicable, bring financial documents like pay stubs, tax returns, or bank statements. -
Contact Information:
Provide details of any witnesses or other parties relevant to your case. -
Personal Identification:
Bring a valid ID for verification purposes. -
Pen and Notebook:
Take notes during the consultation to remember important points. -
Budget Constraints:
Be ready to discuss your budget and any financial limitations.
How Much Does a Lawyer Cost?
The cost of hiring a lawyer varies widely based on several factors:
-
Fee Structures:
-
Hourly Rate:
Lawyers may charge anywhere from $150 to $500 or more per hour, depending on experience and location. -
Flat Fee:
For routine legal services like drafting a will or handling an uncontested divorce, lawyers might offer a flat fee. -
Retainer Fee:
An upfront payment against which the lawyer bills hourly fees. -
Contingency Fee:
Common in personal injury cases; the lawyer receives a percentage (typically 25% to 40%) of any settlement or award. -
Monthly Retainer:
For ongoing services, businesses might pay a monthly fee for a set number of hours or services.
-
Hourly Rate:
-
Factors Affecting Cost:
-
Complexity of the Case:
More complex cases require more time and resources, increasing costs. -
Lawyer's Experience:
Highly experienced lawyers may charge higher fees. -
Geographic Location:
Legal fees can vary significantly by region or city. -
Additional Expenses:
Court filing fees, expert witness fees, travel expenses, and administrative costs may be extra.
-
Complexity of the Case:
-
Estimating Total Costs:
Request a detailed fee agreement outlining all potential costs.
Discuss any additional expenses that may arise during the case. -
Negotiating Fees:
Some lawyers may be willing to negotiate fees or offer payment plans, especially for clients with financial constraints. -
Pro Bono Services:
For those who cannot afford legal services, some lawyers or legal aid organizations offer services at reduced rates or for free.
