>2.4k
experienced lawyers
Filter by
21 Nov, 2022 by Anonymous
I had high hopes however after paying this attorney approximately $20,000 in fees he essentially quit without notice at a very critical time.
Read more
19 Jul, 2022 by Barrett
Jacob helped us through a very messy landlord issue we had in 2020. The landlord disagreed as to whether water intrusion in our place of resident was worthy of repair. After several weeks of requesting repairs the landlord finally had the flooring and walls removed with no intention of making repairs or replacing drywall/floors. Our landlord then hired a lawyer to harass us in to renouncing our right to the home that we were still paying rent on and threaten to throw our belongings on the curb. The landlord's law firm seemed to have no understanding of tenant landlord law and refused to have further conversation about the illegality of the landlord. Within a matter of weeks after hiring Jacob the landlord was covering all of our moving costs and agreed to return our deposit and rent paid when the unit was not livable. Without Jacob we would have found ourselves with no home and no financial way of obtaining new housing. Jacob was life saver and helped us recover more than SDCI or small claims court in less than a fraction of the time!
Read more
06 Dec, 2022 by Rowan
Hey Arthur, sorry about that rude man that gave your a 1 ⭐️ Review, but you are amazing
Read more
26 Feb, 2021 by Anonymous
Tried working with this asshat but he was arrogant and obnoxious. Would get angry and throw fits for no reason and is a total misogynist who treats woman horribly and then gaslights them into submission. I know this because Seattle is a small town and we share mutual acquaintances he wasn’t aware of.
He boasted that he “lulls clients into a feeling of false security” and “does whatever it takes to destroy people.” This guys is an manipulative and lying creep. Be advised to stay away.
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
11 Jul, 2024 by Kristopher lichtanski
I have had an excellent experience with CCL and Ms. Choi in the matter of a complicated easement / title situation. The office staff was super responsive, appointments were scheduled quickly and in collaboration with my schedule/availability, and the meetings I had with Ms. Choi were focused, organized, and super productive. I felt that Ms. Choi was prepared for the meetings, understood what I was dealing with, and discussed with me multiple options and potential outcomes regarding this legal matter, which is going to end up in Court. I could not have asked for a better attorney for my situation (and I have consulted with others prior to CCL) and I very much look forward to my ongoing work with CCL and Ms. Choi. I recommend CCL and Ms. Choi wholeheartedly!
Read more
05 May, 2024 by Ricardo saenz
I arranged a meeting with her to discuss immigration matters and seek professional validation of the process I had completed on my own. Unfortunately, during our reunion, she seemed more focused on protecting herself than genuinely assisting me. However, when I attended my USCIS appointment today, everything was in order, and the concerns she raised did not materialize. It was a stressful experience unnecessarily.
Read more
26 Apr, 2024 by Larry hu
I did not have a good experience with the law firm. My main issues is that Boyoon Choi would repeatedly interrupt me and cut me off before I could finish speaking and there were some mannerisms like scoffing (in a subtle but noticeable way) that came off as pretty condescending and I received a general negative feeling from the tone of voice she used with me. She was also 6 minutes late to our Zoom meeting but cut our 30 minute meeting short nonetheless so we really only had 24 minutes together. I'm sure she would probably bill the time for 30 minutes to my MetLife benefits and not the 24 minutes that I actually got. The way I see it, if a client does not have the correct understanding then inform them in a respectful way. Trying to be subtle with mannerisms like quietly scoffing or responding with a negative tone, one that felt a bit indignant towards me feels less like you're working with someone that's trying to advocate for you and more like you're talking to someone that's trying to take out whatever stress she may be having towards you. It seems that no wonder her staff seems to sound a bit on edge over the phone as I can imagine what it can be like to be subjected to that over time.
She also knew that my home is in Snohomish County but told me that she can't help with the eviction process in that area, but took my money through my MetLife benefit anyway. That's pretty messed up.
Lastly, I also felt it was problematic to be told that she did not know the RCW that covered why a 90 day notice to vacate due to sale is not enforceable unless it is specifically mentioned in the lease agreement. When I requested clarification for her to specify how is this the case, she could only tell me it's part of the general landlord tenant rights that a lease agreement has to specify that an early termination can take place due to sale and that this language would not be specifically mentioned due to it being covered under the general umbrella of tenant rights. However, RCW 59.18.650 clearly states it's permissible for a landlord to end a lease agreement early with cause for the purpose of selling a home.
Boyoon Choi should really be careful with giving advice that she clearly does not know the basis for. It is concerning when you ask for the RCW that she does not know it, and scoffs at you while mentioning it's part of the general rights for a tenant.
Anyways, here is what I was told by another source about the permissibility of ending a lease early to sell the home:
In Washington State, typically, if a landlord provides a 90-day notice to vacate for the purpose of selling the property, this is generally considered lawful. In Washington State, the enforceability of a 90-day notice to vacate due to the sale of a property typically does not require a specific clause in the lease agreement stating that sale of the home entails the tenant moving out. The standard process allows landlords to issue such a notice as part of the rights to dispose of their property, assuming other legal and procedural requirements are met (e.g., proper notice period and service).
Lastly, she was also incorrect about my MetLife legal benefit. She said I don't have benefits for litigation as part of my benefit but in my MetLife portal it clearly states: "This service covers the Participant as a landlord for matters involving leases, security deposits and disputes with a residential tenant. The service includes attorney services for the eviction of a tenant up to and including trial."
Read more
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 a Litigation Lawyer Can Do for You
A litigation lawyer specializes in representing individuals, businesses, or organizations involved in legal disputes. Whether you're the one filing a lawsuit or you're being sued, a litigation attorney will advocate on your behalf throughout the entire legal process. Their goal is to resolve disputes, either through negotiation, settlement, or trial. Litigation lawyers can help with a wide range of disputes, including contract disagreements, real estate issues, employment disputes, personal injury claims, and more.
Litigation lawyers provide strategic legal advice and manage all aspects of your case, from filing motions to representing you in court, ensuring that your rights are protected and that you have the best chance of achieving a favorable outcome.
When Should I Hire a Litigation Lawyer?
You should consider hiring a litigation lawyer if you're involved in a legal dispute that you cannot resolve on your own. Common situations include:
- Breach of contract disputes: If a party to a contract fails to fulfill their obligations, a litigation lawyer can help you seek damages or enforce the agreement.
- Business disputes: Litigation lawyers can represent you in cases of partnership disagreements, intellectual property disputes, or business fraud.
- Employment disputes: If you're facing issues like wrongful termination, workplace discrimination, or wage disputes, a litigation lawyer can help resolve these matters through negotiation or court action.
- Personal injury claims: If you've been injured due to someone else's negligence and are seeking compensation, a litigation attorney can help you pursue your case.
- Real estate or property disputes: When there are conflicts over property ownership, boundary issues, or lease agreements, a litigation lawyer can assist in resolving the dispute.
Hiring a lawyer early in the process is beneficial, especially if a lawsuit seems imminent or you have already been served with legal documents.
What Does a Litigation Lawyer Do?
A litigation lawyer handles all aspects of your case, from the initial investigation to the trial and even the appeals process, if necessary. Their role includes:
- Case assessment and investigation: Analyzing the facts of your case and advising whether it’s worth pursuing or defending.
- Pleadings and motions: Drafting and filing documents to initiate or respond to a lawsuit, including complaints, motions to dismiss, and answers.
- Discovery: Gathering evidence, including depositions, interrogatories, and document requests, to build your case.
- Negotiations and settlement discussions: Attempting to resolve disputes through mediation, arbitration, or settlement talks before going to trial.
- Trial representation: Presenting your case in court, examining witnesses, introducing evidence, and making legal arguments before a judge or jury.
- Appeals: If necessary, filing appeals to challenge or defend the outcome of the trial.
Litigation lawyers are also skilled negotiators and often work to resolve disputes outside of court to save time, money, and stress for their clients.
How Are Litigation Lawyers Paid?
Litigation lawyers typically use a variety of fee structures depending on the type of case, the complexity of the legal matter, and the financial circumstances of the client. Common payment arrangements include:
- Hourly rates: Many litigation attorneys charge by the hour, with rates varying based on experience and geographic location.
- Flat fees: For specific, predictable legal tasks (such as filing a motion), lawyers may offer a flat fee.
- Contingency fees: In personal injury or other cases where you seek damages, a lawyer may work on a contingency basis, taking a percentage of the settlement or award if you win.
- Retainer: Some clients pay a retainer fee upfront to secure ongoing legal services. The lawyer then bills against this retainer as work is done.
The exact structure should be discussed in the initial consultation to ensure you understand how and when you'll be charged.
How Much Does a Litigation Lawyer Cost?
The cost of a litigation lawyer varies significantly depending on the nature of the dispute and the lawyer’s experience. Factors affecting the cost include:
- The complexity of the case: More complex litigation involving extensive discovery, expert witnesses, or multi-party suits typically costs more.
- Time spent: Litigation cases can be time-consuming, especially if they go to trial. The longer the case, the higher the legal fees.
- Type of fee arrangement: Hourly rates can range from $200 to over $1,000 per hour, depending on the lawyer’s reputation and location. Contingency fees generally range from 25% to 40% of the settlement or award.
- Stage of litigation: Cases that settle early in the process are often less expensive than those that proceed to trial or appeal.
It’s crucial to ask about cost estimates during your initial consultation to avoid surprises.
Top Questions to Ask a Litigation Lawyer
Before hiring a litigation lawyer, it's essential to ask key questions to ensure you're choosing the right representation:
-
What is your experience with cases like mine?
Ensure that the lawyer has experience handling your specific type of dispute, whether it's a contract issue, personal injury, or business matter. -
What are the potential outcomes of my case?
Ask for an honest assessment of your case's strengths, weaknesses, and the likelihood of success. -
What is your fee structure?
Clarify how you'll be charged, whether by the hour, a flat fee, or on a contingency basis. -
How long do you expect my case to take?
While it's hard to predict, an experienced lawyer can give you a rough estimate based on similar cases. -
How often do you settle cases versus going to trial?
Some lawyers are more inclined to settle, while others may be more experienced in the courtroom. It’s important to understand their strategy. -
What is your approach to resolving disputes?
Some lawyers prefer aggressive litigation, while others focus on settlement or mediation. Choose one whose approach aligns with your goals.
How to Check the Credibility of a Litigation Lawyer
To verify a litigation lawyer’s credibility, consider the following steps:
- Check bar association records: Ensure the lawyer is in good standing with the state bar and has no history of disciplinary actions.
- Read client reviews and testimonials: Online reviews can provide insight into the lawyer’s professionalism and track record.
- Look for litigation experience: Review the lawyer’s website or professional profile to ensure they have handled cases like yours and have a record of success.
- Request references: Ask the lawyer to provide references from past clients who can speak to their effectiveness and approach.
- Research their trial experience: If your case is likely to go to trial, ensure the lawyer has a history of courtroom success.
What Should I Prepare for My First Consultation?
To make your first consultation with a litigation lawyer productive, you should prepare the following:
- A clear outline of the dispute: Provide a timeline and key details about the legal issue you're facing.
- Any relevant documents: Bring contracts, emails, letters, or any other documentation that pertains to the case.
- A list of key players: Provide the names of individuals or companies involved in the dispute.
- Questions about fees and the litigation process: Make sure you understand how the lawyer plans to approach your case and how you will be charged.
- Your goals and expectations: Be clear about what outcome you're hoping for, whether it's a settlement, compensation, or another resolution.
By coming prepared, you can ensure that your initial meeting with the lawyer is both efficient and insightful, giving you a better sense of how to proceed with your case.
