The Freedom Practice Coaching lawsuit record is thin but revealing: the company’s parent entity, Metamorphosis Consulting, LLC, has sued at least one former client in federal court for breach of contract, and a separate client account describes the same pattern of being sued for the remaining balance after trying to leave a long-term coaching agreement.1PACER Monitor. Metamorphosis Consulting, LLC v. Carmen Keith2JustAnswer. Legal Question Regarding Freedom Practice Coaching Contract Both known disputes ended with the client filing a counterclaim.
The Federal Case: Metamorphosis Consulting v. Carmen Keith
The one lawsuit documented in federal court records is Metamorphosis Consulting, LLC v. Carmen Keith, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. Metamorphosis Consulting, LLC is the legal entity that operates Freedom Practice Coaching. The defendant, Carmen Keith, removed the case to federal court on July 9, 2018, and the docket classified the matter as a contract dispute.1PACER Monitor. Metamorphosis Consulting, LLC v. Carmen Keith
Keith filed a counterclaim on July 16, 2018, one week after removal. Metamorphosis Consulting answered that counterclaim in October. Judge David A. Ezra presided. The publicly available docket summary does not spell out the specifics of either the original claim or the counterclaim.1PACER Monitor. Metamorphosis Consulting, LLC v. Carmen Keith
The case closed on January 23, 2019, when the parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice. Judge Ezra granted it the next day.1PACER Monitor. Metamorphosis Consulting, LLC v. Carmen Keith A dismissal with prejudice means neither side can refile the same claims. Any settlement terms are not public, so it is not known whether money changed hands or which party prevailed in substance.
A Client Account of the Same Pattern
Beyond the Keith case, one former client publicly described their own dispute while seeking legal advice. The client said they signed a three-year contract at $2,800 per month. According to the client, the agreement included a written guarantee: if the client’s practice did not earn $150,000 more than the prior year, the coaching fees would be refunded.2JustAnswer. Legal Question Regarding Freedom Practice Coaching Contract
The client reported losing roughly $80,000 and sent a demand letter asking to be released from the contract. In the client’s account, the company initially responded by suggesting the contract be treated as “null and void,” then instead sued the client for the remaining balance of about $85,000. A default judgment was entered after the client missed the initial response deadline, though the client later filed an answer, a counterclaim, and a motion to reverse the default, arguing that a timely response had in fact been submitted.2JustAnswer. Legal Question Regarding Freedom Practice Coaching Contract The outcome of that dispute is not publicly available.
What the Company’s Terms Say About Getting Out
Freedom Practice Coaching’s published terms and conditions, last updated in May 2020, are structured to limit the company’s exposure and constrain client remedies. Total company liability is capped at whatever amount the user actually paid for the service, or $100 if nothing was purchased. The terms disclaim consequential damages, including lost profits and business interruption, and the service is offered “as is” with no express or implied warranties.3Freedom Practice Coaching. Terms and Conditions
The company also reserves the right to terminate access at any time, for any reason, without notice. Texas law governs the agreement.3Freedom Practice Coaching. Terms and Conditions The written terms do not describe an exit mechanism for the client, which is consistent with what former clients report: attempts to walk away have been met with collection lawsuits for the balance owed.
Legal Options for a Practitioner in Dispute
A client sued by a coaching company for the balance of a long-term contract is not limited to contract defenses. Under Texas law, a client who was induced into a contract by false promises may have claims for fraudulent misrepresentation or violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Texas fraud claims carry a four-year statute of limitations from the date the misrepresentation occurred.
Whether those claims are available depends on the facts: the exact language of the signed contract, whether any performance guarantee was made in writing, whether that guarantee was honored, and whether the company’s conduct fits fraud rather than an ordinary contract disagreement. The distinction matters. A pure breach-of-contract dispute is generally limited to the dollars at stake in the agreement, while fraud claims can support remedies beyond the contract itself, including punitive damages and attorney fees.
In both known Freedom Practice Coaching disputes, the client answered by filing a counterclaim rather than treating the case as a straight collection action. The Keith case then settled on undisclosed terms; the other remained unresolved on the last available information.