Are you the Owner of this Business? ×
BBB® Accredited Business Seal

Are You the Business Owner of Law Office of Dale Orthner?

If yes, click here to login.

Are you...?


BBB Business Reviews may not be reproduced for sales or promotional purposes.

Description

Bankruptcy
Bankruptcy Consultation
Free Consultation
Debt Relief
Debt Relief Counseling
Credit Counseling
Credit Repair
Financial Counseling


BBB Accreditation

A BBB Accredited Business since

BBB has determined that Law Office of Dale Orthner meets BBB accreditation standards, which include a commitment to make a good faith effort to resolve any consumer complaints. BBB Accredited Businesses pay a fee for accreditation review/monitoring and for support of BBB services to the public.

BBB accreditation does not mean that the business' products or services have been evaluated or endorsed by BBB, or that BBB has made a determination as to the business' product quality or competency in performing services.


Reason for Rating

BBB rating is based on 13 factors. Get the details about the factors considered.

Factors that raised the rating for Law Office of Dale Orthner include:

  • Length of time business has been operating
  • Complaint volume filed with BBB for business of this size
  • Response to 1 complaint(s) filed against business
  • Resolution of complaint(s) filed against business


Customer Complaints Summary Read complaint details

1 complaint closed with BBB in last 3 years | 1 closed in last 12 months
Complaint Type Total Closed Complaints
Advertising/Sales Issues 0
Billing/Collection Issues 0
Delivery Issues 0
Guarantee/Warranty Issues 0
Problems with Product/Service 1
Total Closed Complaints 1

Customer Reviews Summary Read customer reviews

0 Customer Reviews on Law Office of Dale Orthner
Customer Experience Total Customer Reviews
Positive Experience 0
Neutral Experience 0
Negative Experience 0
Total Customer Reviews 0

Additional Information

BBB file opened: September 21, 2009 Business started: 12/02/2008 in CA Business started locally: 12/02/2008
Licensing, Bonding or Registration

This business is in an industry that may require professional licensing, bonding or registration. BBB encourages you to check with the appropriate agency to be certain any requirements are currently being met.

These agencies may include:

State Bar of CA- Attorney
180 Howard St, San Francisco CA 94105
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/
Phone Number: 415-538-2000
feedback@calbar.ca.gov
The number is 258841.

Type of Entity

Sole Proprietorship

Business Management
Mr. Dale A. Orthner, Attorney at Law
Contact Information
Principal: Mr. Dale A. Orthner, Attorney at Law
Business Category

Attorneys - Bankruptcy Lawyers-Bankruptcy & Taxes Credit & Debt Counseling Bankruptcy Assistance & Services Credit Repair Services – Monitored Debt Relief Services Attorneys - Consumer Fraud

Method(s) of Payment
Credit Card
Debit Card
Personal Check
Cash
Service Area
California
Products & Services

Law Offices of Dale Orthner specializes in bankruptcy services.

Industry Tips
Hiring a Credit Repair Service Hiring a Debt Relief Service: What You Should Know

Additional Locations

  • 69 Lincoln Blvd # 300

    Lincoln, CA 95648

  • 915 Highland Pointe Dr Ste 250

    Roseville, CA 95678 (916) 588-5011

X

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating Overview


BBB Customer Reviews Rating represents the customers opinions of the business. The Customer Review Rating is based on the number of positive, neutral and negative customer reviews posted that are calculated to produce a score.

Customer Review Experience Value
Positive Review 5 points per review
Neutral Review 3 points per review
Negative Review 1 point per review

BBB letter grades represent the BBB's opinion of the business. The BBB grade is based on BBB file information about the business. In some cases, a business' grade may be lowered if the BBB does not have sufficient information about the business despite BBB requests for that information from the business.
Details

BBB Letter Grade Scale

BBB Rating Value
A+ 5
A 4.66
A- 4.33
B+ 4
B 3.66
B- 3.33
C+ 3
C 2.66
C- 2.33
D+ 2
D 1.66
D- 1.33
F 1
NR -----
Star Rating scale

  Average Score
5 stars 5.00
4.5 stars 4.50-4.99
4 stars 4.00-4.49
3.5 stars 3.50-3.99
3 stars 3.00-3.49
2.5 stars 2.50-2.99
2 stars 2.00-2.49
1.5 stars 1.50-1.99
1 star 0-1.49

BBB Customer Review Rating plus BBB Rating is not a guarantee of a business' reliability or performance, and BBB recommends that consumers consider a business' BBB Rating and Customer Review Rating in addition to all other available information about the business. If the BBB Rating is NR then only Customer Reviews are used for the Star Rating.

Complaint Detail(s)

6/12/2014 Problems with Product/Service | Read Complaint Details
X

Additional Notes

Complaint: On 16 May 2014, this attorney submitted an insulting email to my wife that brought her to tears. Since that email, I have been the brunt of continous harrassment by this attorney. His ettiquette is attrocious. My wife paid him to file a bankruptcy. As this bankruptcy is not joint, only my financial information, not property, were to be reported but he reported all my information as if I were filing with her, and included reaffirmations for vehicles that do not belong to her.

Desired Settlement: Cease and desist ALL contact until June 4th, 2014 for the bankruptcy hearing and ALL contact thereafter. Should ANY documentation be misfiled or incorrect on June 4th, 2014, repayment of half money back to file the paperwork for my wife, MYSELF.

Business Response:

On to the complaint – as implied by ******** text, he was not my client; he did not pay me for services.

 

His wife, ****, did hire me for her bankruptcy case. I filed the case, attended the trustee meeting with her on June 4 (****** was with her, but said not one word to me), and have already completed everything that is likely to be required in her case. Her case should proceed normally, with a full discharge of her dischargeable debts, and close in about two months. The trustee has already issued a “Report of No Distribution,” which means the trustee does not intend to liquidate any assets, and that ****’s case is essentially done.

 

The problem arose when I tried to obtain bank statements from ****. Every debtor must submit bank statements to the trustee to show the balance of every account as of the date of filing. I’ve had literally hundreds of clients successfully do this. I sent my standard email to **** on April 29, 2014, but she couldn’t seem to manage to get me the statements.

 

In fact, I had to send nine additional emails on that issue alone, and further discuss the issue on the phone with her, to try to get the statements. All of these emails, with full internet headers, are available, should they be needed.

 

I believe ****** may have helped to finally produce the required bank statements, but then he also asserted a few things that are critically wrong. One is that I “included reaffirmations” on vehicles. As I explained to him in an email on May 19:

 

-------------------------

A “reaffirmation” is lengthy agreement that must be filed with the court. A statement of intent to “reaffirm” a debt is simply a non-binding statement of intent. The two are vastly different as to form and legal effect.

 

Please stop insisting that your severely limited view of certain legal issues is correct, when in fact much of it is wrong. If you have a question regarding something, I’m happy to answer that.

-------------------------

 

I have not “included,” or otherwise sent, or even suggested, any reaffirmation of any vehicle (or any other property) in ****’s case. Further, I would not be likely to do so, given the specific financial facts related to those vehicles.

 

****** also refused to sign a required spousal waiver for ****’s case. Fortunately, the trustee appears to have overlooked the omission and may not require it, even though the law clearly does require it to protect her assets under Cal. CCP 703. His basis for refusal also clearly misstated the law.

 

He is also incorrect that his property should not have been listed in ****’s petition. The marital community, and thus ****, almost certainly has a “buy-in” interest in the property, and as such, it must be listed. Further, doing so should cause no issues of any kind to anyone.

 

It is not clear what issues may be behind ******’s behavior, but given his complete silence at the trustee meeting on June 4, hopefully he’s either corrected certain misperceptions, or at least decided to leave the legal work to someone licensed to practice it, and who has successfully done so in hundreds of bankruptcy cases.

 

Consumer Response:

I am rejecting this response because:

You are wrong sir yet again. My mortgage company contacting me in reference to your own mistake which has now placed my home in a bankruptcy department and so my mortgage company is now unable to speak with me or FHA regarding assistance until a full investigation is done because you added PREMARITAL property on her bankruptcy. To further add, if 704 exemptions were used, they informed me that yes, my mortgage could have been readjusted at a higher rate to cash out equity RAISING my monthly payment to cover her debts had I signed your form so continue insulting me... I will just let the California Bar Association handle my complaint, which they have received. You also continue to insult my wife and STILL have not appoligized. Further contact regarding this matter will result in a restraining order. Should I have further complications with MY PROPERTY due to YOUR mistakes, I will be filing against you in court. You admitted yourself you filed paperwork fraudelently. I kept my mouth shut otherwise I probably would have been arrested. Unlike you, I learned that if you cannot say anything nice, keep your mouth shut and so I did.