Pittsburgh Firm Sued Over Allegedly False Online Reviews
Tabatha Wolfe alleges that Kraemer, Manes & Associates won her business based on bogus online ratings and then mishandled her case against a former employer.
January 11, 2019 at 07:15 PM
4 minute read
A western Pennsylvania woman is suing a Pittsburgh personal injury firm for fraud, alleging that the firm's false online reviews tricked her into hiring an ineffective lawyer.
Tabatha Wolfe claims that after she reached out to Kraemer, Manes & Associates based on its high online ratings, the firm botched her sexual harassment case against a former employer by letting the statute of limitations on key claims expire.
In addition to accusing the firm of soliciting fake positive reviews, she alleged the firm threatened her with litigation if she did not take down her own negative post about it, in a complaint filed Wednesday in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint is on behalf of a proposed class of numerous Kraemer Manes clients.
“KM&A and [name partner Michael] Kraemer took overt acts in furtherance of its conspiracy to defraud prospective clients, including but not limited to offering to provide, and actually providing, employees with paid time off in exchange for soliciting false reviews,” Wolfe's complaint said. “By threatening Wolfe to coerce her into deleting her negative Google review, [Kraemer Manes associate Prabhu] Narahari took overt acts in furtherance of its conspiracy to defraud prospective clients.”
Pittsburgh lawyers Christine Elzer of the Elzer Law Firm and Gregory Paul of Morgan & Paul are representing Wolfe.
Kraemer, reached for comment Friday afternoon, said, “We vigorously deny the allegations in the complaint and we will be strongly opposing them.”
Wolfe alleged that Kraemer, Manes & Associates since 2016, and perhaps as far back as 2013, has ”orchestrated a scheme of soliciting positive online reviews from individuals who have never used KM&A's services.” That increased the firm's aggregate score on several review sites like Google, Facebook, Avvo and Lawyers.com, she alleged, which caused her to approach the firm for services.
Wolfe said she first reached out to Kraemer Manes in December 2016 about a potential sexual harassment claim against her former employer, involving an alleged sexual assault at her previous job. She said the firm's positive reviews on Google caused her to choose Kraemer Manes.
The statute of limitations on her claims ran out just a few weeks after she contacted the firm and completed her intake, the complaint said, on Dec. 26, 2016. Still, the firm issued an EEOC charge in January 2017.
It wasn't until February 2017, just after her attorney at Kraemer Manes sent a demand letter on her behalf to her former employer, that Wolfe learned about the statute of limitations having expired, the complaint said.
Wolfe also alleged that the attorney initially assigned to her case, Martell Harris, failed to show at a preliminary hearing for Wolfe's alleged assaulter, even though he had promised to accompany her. After the preliminary hearing, Kraemer Manes assigned a different attorney to Wolfe's case, the complaint said. But she terminated her representation by the firm days after that, when she learned that some of her claims were time-barred.
She continued to pursue the claims against her former employer that remained, but ”Wolfe's claims against her former employer had significantly less value than they would have had a sexual harassment claim been timely filed,” her complaint alleged.
In September 2017, Wolfe wrote a one-star review of Kraemer Manes on Google, with a post describing her problems with the firm. According to the complaint, it began: “BEWARE!! Take it from a legitimate client who hired this so called law firm. Don't do it.”
The complaint said Kraemer Manes responded by sending Wolfe a letter asserting that her review of the firm was defamatory, and threatening to file for injunctive relief to have the post removed if she did not take it down herself.
Wolfe is suing the firm for professional negligence, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, civil conspiracy, unfair trade practices and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act violations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDon’t Settle for the Minimum: Finding Constitutional Claims Closer to Home
7 minute readSeven Rules of the Road for Managing Referrals To/From Other Attorneys, Part 1
7 minute readMatt's Corner: RPC 8.4(d)—Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 2Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 3NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 4A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 5Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250