Posted on
November 20, 2015 in
I sent Fidelity a copy of Matthew’s email proposing that I act as a front man, using my name to allow him to get referrals from their Preferred Attorney list. ((I probably wouldn’t have bothered if Matthew hadn’t reminded me that he was there by incompetently threatening to sue me.))
I received a prompt emailed reply from their (a?) Director of Wealth Planning Product Management in Merrimack, New Hampshire:
Dear Attorney Bennett – this is outside the scope of our program.
Thank you!
That’s short and sweet. No surprises there. So Matthew’s suggestion that Fidelity would not be defrauded under his scheme is, it appears, false.
I’m sending my correspondent a link to this blog post, in case Fidelity is concerned about Matthew’s “family friends at Fidelity Investments who promise me AT LEAST one new client a week (Estate Planning) if I were able to get on their Preferred Attorney’s List” outside the scope of Fidelity’s program.
You still have two, count em, TWO ENTIRE DAYS SIR left,per his demand letter. Although he may have a bit of wiggle room since he not state calendar versus business days. A little specificity would have been called for in a serious demand letter.
In any event, I wait with eager anticipation to see his response when . . . . . . absolutely . . . .nothing . . . . happens.
I was wondering about his insider “family friends” at Fidelity. Given the tenuous relationship between the things Chappell writes and reality, my guess is that they’re about as real as that defamation claim, or the relationship you would have had if you accepted his offer. Oh, there probably really is somebody in Fidelity’s Wealth Planning department who knows somebody that has a family member named Matthew to whom they’ve mentioned that law firms on the preferred average one referral a week, and when he asked about getting on the list they told him that “Gosh, I’m afraid I can’t help you because we require 5 years of experience…” and now their boss is getting email about it…