Lawyers map
>1.2k
experienced lawyers
Filter by
10 Sep, 2024 by River witch
Michelle Fze Chong So is an extraordinary lawyer who embodies the passion and tenacity often portrayed in movies and TV shows. Her commitment to delivering justice is inspiring and remarkable, reflecting the true spirit of a legal champion. Her unwavering support and expertise were nothing short of amazing.
Winning a case others claimed was hopeless showcased her exceptional skills and immensely impacted our lives. We are profoundly grateful for her ability to turn the tide in our favor when all seemed lost. She not only our saved our butts, but she also saved us tens of thousands of dollars. She is a true warrior with superpower legal skills. Her legal expertise was vital to securing our future. Her dedication and hard work have made all the difference in our lives. We are forever appreciative and profoundly grateful for all her effort and hard work.
Read more
07 Sep, 2024 by Ken leffler
Kelley Duggan was disciplined by the Washington state bar for ETHICS violation, very incompetent attorney
Read more
06 Sep, 2024 by X x
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
10 Sep, 2024 by River witch
Michelle Fze Chong So is an extraordinary lawyer who embodies the passion and tenacity often portrayed in movies and TV shows. Her commitment to delivering justice is inspiring and remarkable, reflecting the true spirit of a legal champion. Her unwavering support and expertise were nothing short of amazing.
Winning a case others claimed was hopeless showcased her exceptional skills and immensely impacted our lives. We are profoundly grateful for her ability to turn the tide in our favor when all seemed lost. She not only our saved our butts, but she also saved us tens of thousands of dollars. She is a true warrior with superpower legal skills. Her legal expertise was vital to securing our future. Her dedication and hard work have made all the difference in our lives. We are forever appreciative and profoundly grateful for all her effort and hard work.
Read more
07 Sep, 2024 by Ken leffler
Kelley Duggan was disciplined by the Washington state bar for ETHICS violation, very incompetent attorney
Read more
06 Sep, 2024 by X x
10 Sep, 2024 by River witch
Michelle Fze Chong So is an extraordinary lawyer who embodies the passion and tenacity often portrayed in movies and TV shows. Her commitment to delivering justice is inspiring and remarkable, reflecting the true spirit of a legal champion. Her unwavering support and expertise were nothing short of amazing.
Winning a case others claimed was hopeless showcased her exceptional skills and immensely impacted our lives. We are profoundly grateful for her ability to turn the tide in our favor when all seemed lost. She not only our saved our butts, but she also saved us tens of thousands of dollars. She is a true warrior with superpower legal skills. Her legal expertise was vital to securing our future. Her dedication and hard work have made all the difference in our lives. We are forever appreciative and profoundly grateful for all her effort and hard work.
Read more
07 Sep, 2024 by Ken leffler
Kelley Duggan was disciplined by the Washington state bar for ETHICS violation, very incompetent attorney
Read more
06 Sep, 2024 by X x
10 Sep, 2024 by River witch
Michelle Fze Chong So is an extraordinary lawyer who embodies the passion and tenacity often portrayed in movies and TV shows. Her commitment to delivering justice is inspiring and remarkable, reflecting the true spirit of a legal champion. Her unwavering support and expertise were nothing short of amazing.
Winning a case others claimed was hopeless showcased her exceptional skills and immensely impacted our lives. We are profoundly grateful for her ability to turn the tide in our favor when all seemed lost. She not only our saved our butts, but she also saved us tens of thousands of dollars. She is a true warrior with superpower legal skills. Her legal expertise was vital to securing our future. Her dedication and hard work have made all the difference in our lives. We are forever appreciative and profoundly grateful for all her effort and hard work.
Read more
07 Sep, 2024 by Ken leffler
Kelley Duggan was disciplined by the Washington state bar for ETHICS violation, very incompetent attorney
Read more
06 Sep, 2024 by X x
10 Sep, 2024 by River witch
Michelle Fze Chong So is an extraordinary lawyer who embodies the passion and tenacity often portrayed in movies and TV shows. Her commitment to delivering justice is inspiring and remarkable, reflecting the true spirit of a legal champion. Her unwavering support and expertise were nothing short of amazing.
Winning a case others claimed was hopeless showcased her exceptional skills and immensely impacted our lives. We are profoundly grateful for her ability to turn the tide in our favor when all seemed lost. She not only our saved our butts, but she also saved us tens of thousands of dollars. She is a true warrior with superpower legal skills. Her legal expertise was vital to securing our future. Her dedication and hard work have made all the difference in our lives. We are forever appreciative and profoundly grateful for all her effort and hard work.
Read more
07 Sep, 2024 by Ken leffler
Kelley Duggan was disciplined by the Washington state bar for ETHICS violation, very incompetent attorney
Read more
06 Sep, 2024 by X x
25 May, 2016 by Sue
We hired Daniel Rogers to represent us in a property line dispute. The duration of our contact was 4 months. I give Dan the highest recommendation as he guided us through the laws that impacted our situation which turned in to an adverse possession of what was originally our property. but now legally was our neighbor's.
What I appreciated most was his ability to listen to and understand my concerns and feelings; then with sensitivity he explained the law, talked about our options, and interfaced with the other party's attorney. When I questioned his ideas he worked diligently to answer all of our questions. Even though the final outcome was not what I hoped for, in hindsight it was the best solution. Dan was so patient with us and he was right in his advice. We were not the easiest clients to handle, but Dan navigated our case very well. Because of Dan we have a deeper understanding of the law. Without hesitation we will employ Dan again if we need legal counsel.
Read more
01 Jul, 2015 by Maynard
I initially worked with Dan over a year ago regarding a dispute with a previous employer with which I needed some guidance. Dan was professional, honest, and extremely responsive in helping me resolve this matter. He had a clear legal understanding of the issues at hand, was very fair in how he billed his time for me, and always replied to my phone calls and emails within 24 hours. Additionally, Dan was incredible about proactively reaching out to me to keep me informed every time something happened, whether or not it required action on my part.
I was so happy with my experience that when I needed a lawyer to review a contract for a business opportunity that emerged, Dan was the first call I made. While my first experience was good, my second experience was even more impressive. The contract negotiations for this opportunity came right up against a deadline and Dan went above and beyond to make sure that everything was completed on time (I believe he even worked over the weekend to accomplish everything).
My experiences with Dan have been so good that I have not hesitated to refer him to my family, friends, and clients. If you are ever in need of an honest, trustworthy, and knowledgeable attorney, Dan is your guy. I look forward to doing more business with him as needed in the future.
Read more
08 Apr, 2015 by Anonymous
For nearly a year Dan Rogers was working my wrongful termination case. In that time frame he acquired absolutely no useful or beneficial discovery from the opposition while diligently meeting their every demand. His inexperience and naive nature allowed him to bullied and swayed by both opposing counsel and his own management to the detriment of his client and case.
Often during our tenure working together Dan Rogers would contact me detailing a discovery he had made in the case. Each and every one of these discoveries was something that I had already explained to him months prior. Usually more than once.
Ultimately I was told that my input and opinion were not needed in my own case because I was not an attorney and therefore could not understand the process.
After alienating most of the witnesses and getting one terminated my case had been damaged almost beyond repair.
I warned Dan Rogers about the negative possibility of each one of these aspects and was ignored at every turn. He proceeded against my advice and the result was predictable.
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
14 Jul, 2016 by Anonymous
harold federow helped me with my book and he was supposed to protect it by securing the copyright and also by protecting my domain name for my publishing company. he did not do the national trademark registration and he did not protect my domain name. i would never recommend him as my attorney again.
Read more
21 Feb, 2013 by Bethany
I met Harold through the Entrepreneur Law Clinic at UW. While I wasn't accepted into the program, he took me on as a client anyway. Harold helped me file trademark registration and kept me informed throughout the whole process, (which took over a year!) I found Harold to be generous with his time, sincere, knowledgable and willing to help. I am very happy to have him as an integral part of my "team" and look forward to working with him again!
Read more
14 May, 2019 by Nancy
Bruce McDermott is a brilliant and effective attorney. He took over my case and brought it to a conclusion with a more favorable outcome than I had imagined was possible. He fought doggedly for my interests and never failed to communicate directly and personally with me to keep me updated about my case. I cannot say enough about the level of expert personal service I received from Mr. McDermott.
Read more
08 Jun, 2018 by Anonymous
Talks a good game. Has lots of experience. But from my experience as his client, he doesn't do much of the work himself and has the peons do the work. That's OK on some level, but when push comes to shove he doesn't know your case and all he really cares about is billable hours. For $400+ an hour I'm quite sure you can find somebody significantly better.
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
09 Nov, 2023 by Nona yerbusinez
My experience with this guy is terrible, he will cost you a fortune, drag things out to charge more, not keep track of specific billing, provide inaccurate billing, inaccurate documents, which my attorney had to edit costing additional funds and fail to represent you and your family. He was used by our family in an estate resolution mediation issue and was bias, arrogant and unwilling to communicate or answer questions with any knowledge or integrity which ended up dragging out the process through court. He basically "earned" an exceptionally large portion of my child's inheritance from her father's passing and left us with much less than we were owed by her father's estate and left us feeling robbed. I do not recommend.
Read more
30 Jan, 2023 by John king
Scammer, stay away from this 🐀
Read more
26 Dec, 2022 by Robsg13
I selected him to be my divorce attorney. He was in place for 9 months and charged me almost 9k. Although the said he was filing paperwork and sending it off he did nothing. He’s a snake and will not represent you but he will charge you. He never even replied to any of the paperwork that I put together to send off. Do not hire him it will be a waist of time and resources
Read more
Discover the ideal lawyer
You can search a lawyer by practice area, lawyer name, city, state, or ZIP code
FAQs
Questions? We have answers
What an Intellectual Property Lawyer Can Do for You
An intellectual property (IP) lawyer specializes in protecting the rights related to creations of the mind, including inventions, designs, logos, brands, artistic works, and trade secrets. IP lawyers help clients secure legal rights to their intellectual property, enforce those rights, and defend against infringement claims. They can also assist with licensing agreements, negotiating royalties, and managing intellectual property portfolios.
Whether you're a business seeking to protect a trademark, an inventor patenting a new product, or an artist protecting your work from unauthorized use, an intellectual property lawyer ensures that your creations are legally safeguarded and helps you navigate the complex landscape of IP law.
When Should I Hire an Intellectual Property Lawyer?
Hiring an intellectual property lawyer is beneficial in many situations where you need to secure, protect, or defend your intellectual property rights. Key scenarios include:
- Filing a patent: If you've invented a new product or process, a lawyer can help you apply for a patent and ensure the protection of your invention.
- Trademarking a logo or brand name: To protect your business's brand identity, a lawyer can assist in trademarking logos, names, slogans, or symbols.
- Copyright protection: If you’ve created an original work (e.g., a book, music, or software), a lawyer can help you register your copyright and ensure your rights are protected.
- Trade secrets protection: For businesses with proprietary information, a lawyer can draft agreements to protect trade secrets and ensure they remain confidential.
- Defending against infringement: If someone is using your intellectual property without permission, a lawyer can help you take legal action to stop the infringement and seek damages.
- Licensing agreements: If you want to allow others to use your intellectual property for a fee, an IP lawyer can draft or negotiate licensing agreements that protect your interests.
- IP portfolio management: If you have multiple forms of intellectual property, a lawyer can help you manage your IP portfolio, ensuring all assets are protected and strategically utilized.
Hiring a lawyer early in the process can help you avoid legal pitfalls and ensure that your intellectual property is adequately protected from the start.
What Does an Intellectual Property Lawyer Do?
An intellectual property lawyer provides a wide range of services to protect and enforce your intellectual property rights. They can:
- File patents and trademarks: Helping you prepare and submit patent or trademark applications to protect your inventions, brands, or logos.
- Register copyrights: Assisting with the registration of original creative works to ensure your rights are protected under copyright law.
- Litigate infringement cases: Representing you in court if your intellectual property has been used without authorization or if you're accused of infringement.
- Draft licensing agreements: Creating contracts that allow others to use your intellectual property while ensuring you retain control and receive appropriate compensation.
- Manage IP portfolios: Helping businesses and individuals manage multiple forms of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets.
- Conduct due diligence in business deals: Ensuring that intellectual property assets are properly valued and protected during mergers, acquisitions, or licensing agreements.
- Monitor and enforce IP rights: Monitoring for potential infringement and taking legal action when necessary to protect your IP from unauthorized use.
How Are Intellectual Property Lawyers Paid?
Intellectual property lawyers typically charge for their services in different ways, depending on the complexity of the work and the type of intellectual property being protected. Common payment structures include:
- Flat fee: For specific services such as filing a trademark or copyright application, many lawyers charge a flat fee that covers all the work required for that service.
- Hourly rate: For more complex tasks, such as drafting licensing agreements or litigating infringement cases, lawyers may charge by the hour. Hourly rates vary depending on the lawyer’s experience and location.
- Contingency fee: In some cases, particularly for IP litigation, a lawyer may work on a contingency basis, meaning they only get paid if they win or settle the case. Their fee would typically be a percentage of the settlement or damages awarded.
- Retainer: For ongoing IP needs, some clients may pay a retainer fee upfront to secure the lawyer’s services, which the lawyer then bills against as they work on the case.
It’s essential to discuss fees and payment arrangements with your lawyer upfront to ensure there are no surprises.
How Much Does an Intellectual Property Lawyer Cost?
The cost of hiring an intellectual property lawyer depends on the complexity of the case and the type of intellectual property involved. General cost estimates include:
- Trademark registration: The cost of registering a trademark can range from $500 to $2,000, depending on the complexity of the application and whether there are any issues during the registration process.
- Patent filing: Filing a patent is often more expensive, with costs ranging from $5,000 to $15,000 or more, depending on the type of patent (utility, design, etc.) and the complexity of the invention.
- Copyright registration: Registering a copyright is usually less costly, with fees typically ranging from $300 to $1,500 for most creative works.
- Litigation: If you’re involved in an IP dispute or infringement case, litigation can be costly, with fees ranging from $10,000 to hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the complexity and duration of the case.
- Licensing agreements: Drafting or negotiating a licensing agreement can range from $1,000 to $5,000 or more, depending on the terms and complexity of the agreement.
Always get a clear estimate of costs during your initial consultation to ensure that the services are within your budget.
Top Questions to Ask an Intellectual Property Lawyer
Before hiring an intellectual property lawyer, it’s essential to ask questions that will help you determine if they are the right fit for your case. Here are some key questions to ask:
-
What experience do you have with intellectual property law?
Ensure that the lawyer has substantial experience with your specific type of intellectual property, whether it’s patents, trademarks, copyrights, or trade secrets. -
How do you charge for your services?
Clarify whether the lawyer charges by the hour, a flat fee, or contingency, and get a clear estimate of what your case will cost. -
What is the likelihood of success with my application or case?
A good lawyer should provide an honest assessment of the chances of successfully obtaining a patent, trademark, or copyright or winning an infringement case. -
How long will the process take?
Ask about the expected timeline for filing your application or resolving your dispute, as IP matters can sometimes take months or years to finalize. -
What steps will you take to protect my intellectual property?
Ask the lawyer how they will help ensure your intellectual property is fully protected and what strategies they use to enforce IP rights. -
Have you handled cases similar to mine?
If your case involves specific industries or technologies, ask whether the lawyer has worked with similar clients and what the outcomes were.
How to Check the Credibility of an Intellectual Property Lawyer
To ensure that you’re hiring a reputable intellectual property lawyer, take the following steps:
- Check their standing with the state bar: Verify that the lawyer is licensed to practice in your state and has no history of disciplinary actions.
- Look for specific IP experience: Check their website or professional profile to ensure they specialize in intellectual property law and have successfully handled cases like yours.
- Read client reviews and testimonials: Look for reviews on platforms like Avvo, Martindale-Hubbell, or Google to see what past clients have said about their experience with the lawyer.
- Ask for references: A reputable lawyer should be willing to provide references from past clients who can speak to their professionalism and success in handling IP matters.
- Check for certifications or memberships: Membership in organizations like the International Trademark Association (INTA) or the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) can indicate expertise in intellectual property law.
What Should I Prepare for My First Consultation?
To get the most out of your first meeting with an intellectual property lawyer, it’s important to come prepared with relevant information and documents. Here’s what you should bring:
- A detailed description of your invention, brand, or creative work: Be prepared to explain what you are seeking to protect, including any unique aspects or characteristics of your intellectual property.
- Any existing IP registrations or applications: If you’ve already filed for trademarks, patents, or copyrights, bring copies of the relevant documents.
- Information on potential infringers: If you are dealing with an infringement issue, provide details of the alleged infringer, including evidence of the infringement, such as images, documents, or correspondence.
- Questions about the process: Write down any questions you have about protecting or enforcing your intellectual property rights, including timelines, costs, and potential outcomes.
- Your goals: Be clear about what you want to achieve, whether it’s securing a patent, protecting a brand, or enforcing your IP rights against unauthorized use.
Being prepared for your first consultation will help the lawyer assess your situation more effectively and provide you with the best possible advice for protecting your intellectual property.
