Screenshot of Kraemer, Manes & Associates’ website.

A Pittsburgh personal injury firm has reached a settlement with the western Pennsylvania woman who sued over allegedly fake reviews about the firm posted online.

Tabatha Wolfe sued Kraemer Manes & Associates in January for fraud, alleging that she hired the firm based on its high online ratings only to have it botch her sexual harassment case against a former employer by letting the statute of limitations expire on key claims.

According to an Aug. 6 filing in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, the case has settled.

Pittsburgh lawyer Christine Elzer, who represented Wolfe in the case along with Gregory Paul of Morgan & Paul, said in a statement that the parties reached a settlement agreement in late July.

According to Elzer, as part of the settlement Kraemer Manes agreed “not to seek online reviews from any individuals who do not have genuine business contacts at any time in the future; (ii) not to offer to compensate, whether through money, paid time off, or other consideration, any person for seeking or obtaining reviews; and (iii) not to threaten to sue a client or former client who writes a negative online review containing only factual or opinion-based statements.”

The firm also agreed to make reasonable efforts to delete its Facebook and Google business pages within 30 days of the executed settlement, Elzer’s statement said. And, the firm agreed to direct its employees to delete any reviews they posted about Kraemer Manes if they were not clients of the firm, and to request that other non-client personal contacts who posted reviews about the firm do the same.

Pittsburgh attorney Michael J. Betts, who represented the law firm in the case, did not immediately respond to a call for comment on the settlement Monday.

In her complaint, 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 on Dec. 26, 2016, just a few weeks after she contacted the firm and completed her intake, the complaint said. Still, the firm issued an EEOC charge in January 2017.

It wasn’t until February 2017, just after Wolfe’s 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 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. She terminated her representation by the firm days after that, when she learned that some of her claims were time-barred.

Wolfe continued to pursue the claims against her former employer that remained, but they “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.

The defendants denied Wolfe’s allegations in its answer to the suit, and said it has no control over the reviews people post about the firm. But the firm did admit that Kraemer Manes rewarded its employees “on limited occasions” when positive reviews and ratings of the firm were posted online.

According to the answer, the firm had 59 Google reviews, and 38 were confirmed as client reviews. Some of the others were listed as reviews by employees, family friends or “unknown/friend.”

“All KM&A can do is invite individuals (clients, former clients, potential clients, as well as friends, family, and colleagues) who may want to share their relevant opinions, experience, or knowledge about KM&A with the public. Of course it has done so, just as virtually every small business in Pennsylvania does,” the answer said.

Read More

Pittsburgh Firm Sued Over Allegedly False Online Reviews