Part 3: The Claim
In Part 2, I showed how a percentage-based adjustment was applied directly to my compensation and reduced what I was paid.
That was how my compensation was handled while I was there.
What followed was different.
On January 15, 2015, I received a letter from Valeo stating that I owed $37,476.96 in ‘Removal Fees,’ essentially a penalty for clients who chose to continue their relationship with me elsewhere.
The letter broke that number down.
It was based on six clients.
Four of those six clients were paying annual fees of $5,000 or less.
One was paying $3,500.
Below is the portion of the demand letter showing the amount and client breakdown:
According to Valeo’s own internal reporting, their client model was structured around significantly higher fee levels.
The lowest target tier began at:
$10,000 in annual fees
Below is the portion of Valeo’s internal report showing the minimum target client tier:
Clients paying $5,000 or less were not within any target category.
They fell below the firm’s stated range.
The firm was demanding compensation for the loss of clients that their own internal metrics categorized as being well below their target business model.
Several weeks later, on February 10, 2015, a second letter was sent—this time from legal counsel.
The amount remained the same.
The tone had changed.
The amount was now described as a debt.
The letter referenced:
collection efforts
potential legal action
recovery of attorney fees and costs
The documents referenced in these letters included the Employment Agreement.
That agreement states that compensation is defined in a separate Compensation Agreement.
In Part 4, I will walk through what was provided—and what was not—when I asked for the agreement that actually defined compensation.