Higbee & Associates review: Extortion scam 1

I am suing the law office for theft and fraud, do not make the same mistake. I never even knew an attorney was assigned to the case. The law office never returns calls and I only spoke with the very young, inappropriate foreign desk clerk serving as a cover-up for the scam three times. This was prior to payment where he lied "very confident" about the results, and to say the case was denied twice. No attorney has ever contacted Plaintiff or returned any call, or e-mail, about anything personal or to discuss any matter at any time leaving Plaintiff misled and misrepresented. The firm worked fraudulently to deceive using the intrinsic knowledge of the Plaintiff that attorneys always have contact with their clients as a part of the profession and line of work. The monthly payment plan was easy and deceptive to take advantage of the Plaintiff's economic state in order to fraudulently gain the money for services not rendered. The contract was not based on ethical terms and is null and void with no attorney present, contactable, or aware of the facts as they existed or changed. And the firm has worked to incur a violation of the attorney responsibilities and publicly known code of conduct. The firm was in serious breech of attorney, client obligation by avoiding any communication with the Plaintiff as is a necessary part of adequate, expected, lawful representation.
COUNT 1 - FRAUD
Plaintiff paid for attorney representation and this should include communication by phone or email to the attorney who is representing the plaintiff to ensure facts are communicated adequately. The contract involved misrepresentation and deceit by the Plaintiff who expected to have personal contact with the attorney and was never given this even once. The office refused to return any messages by anyone and desk clerk Naqvi called on his own only twice shows a severe breech of responsibilities expected by an ethical business and avoidance of being legally abiding. The office knows that they cannot perform services adequately and refuses to take responsibility through avoiding returning anyone's calls to show their fraudulent acts at work. It is willingly and maliciously that they have no contact with their clients to maintain deceptive practices as a scam at work. It is also willingly and maliciously showing intent to deceive that the desk clerk said that they were "very confident" in their ability to achieve the result.
COUNT 2 - THEFT
The Defendant demonstrated theft by taking money and not representing the Plaintiff through a court procedure knowing that it is impossible to achieve results without communicating with the Plaintiff. The money was taken willfully and maliciously knowing that the attorney would always fail to ask Plaintiff any questions or present facts relevant to early termination of probation and expungement of the DUI. This was not possible to achieve without the expected attorney, client communication of any degree as was known in advance by the Defendant. And the arrangement was contracted willfully, maliciously using intent to deceive for work that was not performed in accordance with legal expectation and duty. The Defendant refused to provide any statement showing services itemized and no attorney was presented to take credit for it.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages in the full amount for services not provided by representation of an adequate, legal attorney. The contract carried the implication that an attorney would be at work and this should always involve some contact with the Plaintiff as a necessary part of legal representation. There was no need to hire a law firm if an attorney was not available as was expected. The implication was not met and the services were not adequate.