Two weeks ago I posted a diary about an attorney named Chad Boonswang who appeared to have pulled a pretty tacky ambulance-chasing stunt by sending tasteless notes to the families of the victims of the Amtrak crash in Philadelphia.
Boonswang claimed to be innocent, but a week went by without him providing any sort of explanation as to what might have happened.
So, a few days ago I posted a follow-up in which I explained why this incident had struck such a nerve with me personally, even though I have no connection to any of the victims or their families.
Today, I received the following comment on the incident, not from Boonswang himself but from someone named Frank Olivo. Here's our exchange, which answers many questions...but also raises a few more. Note that all of this is on an open, public forum:
Frank Olivo
My firm does Boonswang Law's marketing. This wasn't a set up, nor did it originate in their (or my) office. It was another attorney who does not practice this sort of law, but that was hoping to get a referral fee if Chad got the case (usually entitling him to 20%-30% of what the attorney recovers). He has referred cases in the past, but was asked to stop after a similar episode a few months back (he sent a note to someone who called Chad to scream at him). I think that he does DUI/Criminal Defense and gets most of his clients with direct mail, but never stopped to think that this sort of method would be inappropriate given the situation.
No one at Boonswang Law does any marketing. My firm does his PPC and we have run one TV commercial, and that's it.
As far as the experience with Christians, unfortunately, there are insensitive assholes in every group. I'm really sorry to read this story of yours.
Charles Gaba:
Mr. Olivo--
First, thanks for writing and providing the back story here.
Assuming this is what happened, it sounds like perhaps I do owe Mr. Boonswang an apology.
I waited a full week after his response on Twitter, but he never got back to me (and he also used the curious language "whatever you're referring to" when it was quite obvious in the original tweet what we were referring to).
If this has happened before, why didn't Boonswang simply say so either then or since that time?
However, again, if what you say is true, then it seems to me that Mr. Boonswang might want to let his associate know that he won't provide any sort of referral fee from clients acquired in this fashion.
Frank Olivo
Most attorneys know to clam up whenever there is a conflict like this floating around. He knew that an inquiry into his marketing would turn up exactly what I told you, and that talking publicly could only complicate matters. He did have an "animated discussion" with the other attorney about this and he doesn't think it will happen again.
Just so you know, I do not offer online reputation services. I am only getting involved because I know that no one over at his firm did anything wrong.
I do sincerely admire the way you stood up for this family. I'm sure that it's not the first nor last time.
Charles Gaba:
Thanks for this. I've posted an update with your response.
Still not entirely sure I understand...are you saying that offering referral fees to other attorneys is itself inappropriate? Also, he could have offered to explain the situation to me privately. As it stands, your own explanation is now already public.
It sounds like at this point I should just post your explanation, offer a (qualified) apology and leave it at that.
So...it sounds like on the one hand, Boonswang is indeed innocent of sending out these notes.
On the other hand, it sounds like perhaps he may have been giving referral fees inappropriately (whether via sleazy tactics or not?)? At least that's my interpretation here. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding.
Anyway, this whole thing has gotten kind of weird, so I'm posting this as a (qualified) apology and will leave it at that unless there's some further development.
UPDATE: One more response from Mr. Olivo:
Every single lawyer in the U.S. offers referral fees.
Sending out a mass card with the world's worst sales pitch is what I was saying was inappropriate. I do get the guy's logic: it works to get DUI clients, why not for a multimillion dollar case that he wouldn't even have to litigate? It was highly insensitive (and ham-handed).
As far as his lack of response, that was partially my suggestion and partially "just what lawyers do." Explaining this in 140 characters would have been impossible, and he was on the road with no time to really track down you or the other dozens of people attacking him. I supplied my email address to the original poster, but never heard from her.
It sounds like I do owe Mr. Boonswang a full apology at this point.
As suggested, I'm also postin a link to this diary on both of the earlier ones.
