Sep 2, 2016

Charlie Binder Has An Objection

     Below is a letter I have received from an attorney representing Charlie Binder. You can click on each thumbnail to see it full size.
     Binder is objecting to my post Proposed Rules Of Conduct For Appointed Representatives where I wrote that "This [proposal regulation] is just overkill. I'm not Eric Conn or Charlie Binder. Don't treat me like them. I don't deserve it." Binder feels that I have accused him of certain conduct that the proposal would ban and that I am associating him with the allegedly criminal behavior of Eric Conn. 
     I have no problem saying that I have no knowledge that Charlie Binder or anyone else at Binder and Binder has done anything illegal and that I don't know that this proposal would have any more effect upon Binder and Binder than it would have on my firm.  It would not have taken a three page letter from Binder's attorney to get me to say this. A simple e-mail from Binder himself would have been enough.
     My point in using the names of Eric Conn and Charlie Binder was not to say that their behavior has been the same or similar. My point was to express my concern that each, for different reasons, has generated negative attitudes towards Social Security attorneys on the part of upper Social Security management. I am concerned that these negative attitudes are behind recent Social Security regulatory actions. The issues at Binder and Binder, while not criminal, are magnified in importance by the prominence of that entity. I thought about going through the issues at Binder and Binder but decided there was no point. Almost all my readers already know enough about Binder and Binder to have their own opinions.
     The ironic thing is that Charlie Binder doesn't like to be lumped together with Eric Conn. I don't like being lumped together with either Conn or Binder.



13 comments:

Anonymous said...

I had trouble getting past Telecopier!

Anonymous said...

IF they sue you I will be a witness to the fact that ALJ's in my office have complained about Charles Binder's law firm (or non-attorney representative firm) and its irritating practices.

Anonymous said...

Isn't Binder & Binder libel-proof at this point?

Anonymous said...

They obviously haven't heard the expression: "Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel."

Or nowadays, I guess it would be "...have a blog".

Anonymous said...

I have been around for a while. Seen many first time meetings in many hearings offices. There are good/bad attorneys and non-attorneys, good firms and bad firms; but some large firms are known for how they handle claimants, and the representatives they employ. Often, when asked what I do for a living, someone will ask me if I work for a firm often seen at noon or 2 am on TV.

We know what is being discussed here.

Every claimant (and representative BTW) who came to me from BinderX2 had a horror story. That is true for some other firms. It is interesting to me that every one of these clients who previously had BinderX2, cannot get a fee waiver for representative withdrawal. This means a fee petition, and gosh that’s a lot of work. Think there is an example of an unsuccessful fee petition by BinderX2 referenced somewhere.... Suspect bankruptcy dictates saving money at every step, even if it means swinging for the stands via libel business.

Anonymous said...

I don't see how saying you are different from two different people means those two people are the same. Seems frivolous.

Anonymous said...

Kind of like an apple saying I'm not an orange or a banana. Then the orange says hey don't call me a banana. Say what?

Renato Bringas said...

Billy. Since you repeatedly malign how others practice and chose to lump Conn and Binder it should not be a surprise when anyone takes offence, especially Charlie.

Anonymous said...

What nonsense. B & B was a poorly conceived claim-processing factory. Their "work" was junk and that fact is known top every professional in this space. And the claimant is the one who suffered.

Anonymous said...

Because of the aggressive advertising as "the most successful" disability firm (whatever that was supposed to mean), many claimants ignorantly were proud of their choice of representation--until they got to their hearings. While waiting in the waiting room of my local ODAR, I would see claimants waiting alone, and I sometimes asked who they were waiting for. Many would throw out their chests and smile, stating proudly that they were waiting for their representative from B&B. I then asked if they had ever met, or spoken with, the representative assigned to them. Of course not.

I do not take appeals from the denied cases of other attorneys or reps, but I was called many times about doing an appeal for clients of B&B who were very upset at the poor quality of their representation.

Anonymous said...

3:38 PM,

Don't forget to post your address so that David Keyko knows where to send your letter.

Renato Bringas said...

So I post a response regarding 09/06/16 100pm's nonsensical post and t disappears. Everyone anonymous except for the host and a select few. Easy to generalize when casting aspersions supported by every also anonymous professional. Mr. Hall, you stand by your statements as all should. Cowards.

Anonymous said...

As a former Binder attorney a long time ago, it is funny Charlie Binder is SO thin-skinned about what other Social Security attorneys say about his firm. Who really cares in the long run? It's fair competition.

I would say I would not underestimate Binder ever coming back. It could happen.