Lawyer Ratings

Elliot, Paige

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaintant states that this attorney was hired as a Guardian Ad Litem. Complainant alleges that this attorney did not properly investigate allegations against complainant and supplied erroneous information to the judge in the case which resulted in a loss of custody.

Trafford, Linda

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges that this attorney failed to make court several appearances and once showed up intoxicated (without proper case information), upsetting the judge presiding on the case. Following this incident, according to complaint, the attorney missed another court appearance then abruptly dropped the client/complainant with a letter.

Wallace, Kathy

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that he hired this lawyer because she was the only one willing to work with him on the cost of the retainer. Complainant states that this attorney applied nearly no effort in representing him and silently cooperated with everything the court ordered without making proper arguments in his defense. Complainant states the when he "challenged her attitude", she promptly dropped him as a client in the middle of a custody battle. Complainant further states that while he has "managed to clean up some of her mess", this attorney has taken to billing him for arrears which are gathering interest. Complainant writes: "She is a typical family law attorney who puts her own relationship with the court first and foremost and cares not for the plight of her client ... I have lost my children completely because of her."

Cordell & Cordell (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant -- a US Serviceman -- says he went to this firm after hearing ads for it on the radio and expected the services of a male attorney who could sympathize with his family law problems. Complainant states that he was assigned a woman instead "who was more interested in explaining her rates" than offering "any hope of resolution". Complainant states he is involved in a complicated case with the mother of his child who is a German National, who has harassed him at his workplace and who has been awarded an exorbitant amount of child support by the El Paso child support division. Complainant further states that the mother of the child has recently served him via the German government a demand for alimony ($1200/month) even though they never lived together and were never married; also that the mother has completely cut off all contact between complainant and his daughter. Complaint states that he was put into an uncomfortable situation of having to confide with a female attorney who was ultimately not aggressive enough to deal with his problems.

Attorney Response: "Cordell & Cordell does not aim to do harm to any clients. We are focused on getting clients the best results possible. We are still fighting stigmas in court that naturally see women in a better light. We work our hardest to improve the results for our clients. It has been shown that female attorneys can benefit men in family law cases. Your ex-wife may see her as someone she can trust woman to woman. If you are assigned a female attorney, they can also be very strong willed and fight hard for your success. We would like to apologize for any mistakes that may have been made, as I don't know your case specifics. We are always working to improve as a firm, and appreciate your insight. As a firm it is our goal to return any client calls if made during business hours that same day. We also have created a client collaboration portal which allows clients to interact with their attorney, see billing statements and notes that are made on the cases. This allows you to see exactly what work is being done to your case and how much you are billed. We also are offering client care representatives to every client. If there is ever an issue with your case, please feel free to contact your client care rep, as it is their job to ensure your satisfaction and make sure that you are properly represented. We promise to do our best for all clients in the future."

Thomas, Walter C.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that this attorney did not properly advise him before signing a a Marital Settlement and Custodial Agreement, which resulted in a loss of visitation time for complainant. Complainant further states that this attorney allowed him to be excluded from a final mediation conference and that he gave him a "sloppily and hastily prepared" final draft of the settlement and agreement. Complainant states that when he asked this attorney to correct the agreement, his phone calls and requests were ignored.

Eaton, Charles

RECOMMEND

Details: Respondent states that he hired this attorney when ex-wife filed for a protective order with bogus complaints. Respondent states that his ex-wife somehow had the county prosecutor as her attorney and was told by this attorney that he would not likely win his cases. After some initial problems with "dealing with Mr Eaton", respondent reports that this attorney "showed he was interested in doing what is right" and was able to get all false allegations dismissed. Additionally, respondent writes: "Mr Eaton got it in the order that my ex cannot record, monitor, or listen to my conversations with the kids, and must allow visitation".

Holley, William P. III

299 Alexander St.
Marietta, GA 30060

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges this attorney provided bad counsel at mediation, billed for any and every "little thing", and did not respond to phone calls and emails. Complainant further alleges that he was charged for simply calling this attorney's office to find out why nothing had been done in his case, or why errors in his case were made. Complainant states that after working with this attorney, he was held responsible for his ex's legal fees and suffered doubled child support.

Porter, Ben / Cordell & Cordell (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges this attorney billed complainant for "consultations" with fellow attorneys when there was no activity in his case and was never told what these “consultations” concerned. Complaint further alleges that this attorney recommended that complainant pay 100% of money requested by ex-wife even though there was clear documentation that far less was owed. The complainant, who was considering a new marriage, claims that this attorney took questions about a pre-nuptial agreement as an authorization to draft such an agreement; the attorney's law firm allegedly then billed complainant for the work yet never provided the document. Complainant further alleges that when he terminated all work on his case with this law firm (after spending $10,000 in legal fees), the firm used up a remaining $800 in an escrow account and billed for several hundred more.

Additional: See also ratings for Richard Coffee at Cordell & Cordell in Belleville, IL; and a general entry on Cordell & Cordell in IL.

Bisping, Peggy

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that this attorney did not properly represent him in a custody case and felt that she worked in collusion with his opponent's attorney "in order to squeeze more money out of us". Complainant also writes that he was forced into a visitation schedule which is "definitely biased to the ex."

Carrion, E. Nicole

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges this attorney engaged in legal action which exposed client/complainant to additional legal problems.

Coffee, Richard

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant alleges that this attorney mishandled divorce case by inappropriately alerting opposing party's attorney of proof of cohabitation. Because of this, complainant's ex-wife moved out of home she shared with another man until after trial. This resulted in complainant being ordered to pay spousal support to ex-wife, as well as additional legal fees to take defense in a different direction. Complaint further alleges that this attorney charged him hundreds of dollars just to speak with him on this subject, also that the firm of Cordell & Cordell was as indifferent to their attorney's actions.

Attorney Response: "Cordell & Cordell does not aim to do harm to any clients. We are focused on getting clients the best results possible. We work our hardest to improve the results for our clients. We would like to apologize for any mistakes that may have been made, as I don't know your case specifics. We are always working to improve as a firm, and appreciate your insight. As a firm, it is our goal to return any client calls, if made during business hours that same day. We also have created a client collaboration portal which allows clients to interact with their attorney, see billing statements and notes that are made on the cases. This allows you to see exactly what work is being done to your case and how much you are billed. We also are offering client care representatives to every client. If there is ever an issue with your case, please feel free to contact your client care rep, as it is their job to ensure your satisfaction and make sure that you are properly represented. We promise to do our best for all clients in the future."

Additional: See also a rating for Ben Porter at Cordell & Cordell in Atlanta, GA; and a general entry on Cordell & Cordell in IL.

Cordell & Cordell (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant alleges that a case needlessly dragged out for years, even after a marital estate was 90% settled. Complainant alleges that this firm allowing the OC the ability to keep changing agreement, which resulted in expenses of over $100K. Complaint further alleges that the firm kept changing attorneys, resulting in additional legal fees to bring new lawyer "up to speed" while "important items & wants fell through the cracks because of length of time, lack of filing"; complainant says: "Never felt valued but they market themselves as being on the side of men."

Attorney Response: "Cordell & Cordell does not aim to do harm to any clients. We are focused on getting clients the best results possible. We work our hardest to improve the results for our clients. We would like to apologize for any mistakes that may have been made. We are always working to improve as a firm, and appreciate your insight. However, sometimes we may lose an attorney and would like to keep your case on track. It is necessary as a firm to bring the new attorney up to speed and keep your case on track. As a firm, we do value your opinion and want to ensure your satisfaction and fight for men's rights in family law. We also have created a client collaboration portal which allows clients to interact with their attorney, see billing statements and notes that are made on the cases. This allows you to see exactly what work is being done to your case and how much you are billed. We also are offering client care representatives to every client. If there is ever an issue with your case, please feel free to contact your client care rep, as it is their job to ensure your satisfaction and make sure that you are properly represented. We promise to do our best for all clients in the future."

Additional: See also a rating for Richard Coffee at Cordell & Cordell in Belleville, IL.

Grueninger, Daniel J.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details:

(Complaint 1) Complainant alleges that this attorney accepted fees to take on his case, but never delivered services. Complaint further alleges that this attorney did not personally return phone calls for over six months, and that he missed a filing deadline and subsequently dropped complainant as a client. Complainant reports that he's been unable a obtain a refund on his fees because the judge on the case signed off on attorney's "Leave to Withdraw". This petition blamed complainant for "failing to appear". As court would not readdress, complainant is now seeking restitution with the ARDC.

(Complaint 2) Complaint alleges that this attorney charged complainant over $5000 on a case of child support arrears yet did nothing more than file for extensions in court. Complaint further alleges that this attorney dropped complainant one week before a court date and may have inappropriately shared information with complainant's ex. Complainant is a U.S. serviceman.

(Complaint 3) Complainant says he paid this attorney $150.00 for an initial consultation. Complaint alleges that this attorney "wasn't truly listening" during consultation and had to be "repeatedly told things". This attorney also allegedly dismissed hard copies of case documents and said he would do his "own research" for additional fees.

(Complaint 4) - Complainant is the mother of a US serviceman who was summoned to appear at a child support hearing while serving in Iraq. Complainant states that this attorney would schedule court dates even while knowing her son was deployed would not be able to appear. Complainant further alleges that this attorney kept charging for unjustified fees, racking up a bill of $7000. Complainant states that when her son could not afford to pay $50.00 per month on this bill, this attorney dropped him as a client and demanded full payment. Complainant states that her son now has his unemployment check garnished, has no driver's license, and no means of income

Update: On June 4, 2008, attorney Grueninger was arrested for the misdemeanor sexual battery of of an employee. Details of the incident can be found on this archive stub at the Belleville New Democrat newspaper.

Kievlan, Patricia

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details:

(Complaint 1) Complainant alleges that he was forced by an Illinois judge to hire this attorney as guardian ad litum for his children in a custody case where his children were allegedly being abused by the custodial mother (possibly an illegal immigrant). According to complaint, this attorney served for six months as children's counsel and complainant was ordered by the court to pay $8,000 for her services. Complaint alleges that during this time, this attorney behaved in a biased manner in favor of the custodial mother by not carrying out an in-home assessment, misstating facts, and actively engaging in behavior to discredit non-custodial father. Complaint further alleges that this attorney held several ex parte meetings with complainant's attorney and judge, and that these three worked together to ensure that female opponent retained custody of children, regardless of circumstances and in disregard for the evidence. Complainant states that this "is a lawyer who has a substantial and long history of being a womens' rights lawyer".

(Complaint 2) Complainant states that she hired this attorney as guardian ad litum. Complaint alleges this attorney was inattentive, failed to properly investigate case in best interest of children, and failed to acknowledge a Department of Child and Family Services finding that the custodial parent was a "batterer" and "a danger to child". Complaint further alleges that while this attorney "is called a child psychologist by attorneys in the court, she is not". Complainant states that "she has a Bachelor of Social Work from Kansas, period" and adds: "CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate) volunteers do much better jobs. At least they give a damn about the children they represent."

(Complaint 3) Complainant states that Kievlan was appointed by judge as GAL instead of allowing father to obtain child's representative for his son, and that Kievlan had not yet completed required training to be a GAL. Complaint goes on to state that Kievlan aggressively aligned herself with mother and refused to accept the child's mother was abusing the child; also that Kievlan blamed the child and the father for mother's abusive behavior. Kievlan wrote derogatory report about child and father, and spent considerable time defending mother instead of investigating or substantiating abuse of mother. Complaint further states that Kievlan made it known that she did not like the father and demanded that he engage with a former employee "therapist" even though this therapy session was supposed to be impartial; at first, Kievlan denied that the therapist was her former employee then reluctantly agreed that she had in fact been her superior. Complaint concludes that after 2 1/2 years, the father in this case has full custody of son and that Kievlan is attempting to charge for GAL services when she was not capable under the rules to act as a GAL because she had not met the education requirement. Complainant writes: "Kievlan did nothing to speed the process of custody and created issues that now appear to father to have been nothing more than an excuse for billing hours in what should have been a very clear cut case of parental abuse and neglect. The fact that the mother owns a very large and well known court reporting/litigation support firm seems to have biased Kievlan's views or she is very much biased against males in general."

(Complaint 4): Complainant states that this attorney was assigned as Guardian Ad Litem, by a judge, to her joint custody/child support arrears case. Complainant states she and her ex-husband met with this attorney for 1 hour and are being charged $800.00, despite this attorney's fee being $200.00 an hour. Complainant further states that because she and ex-husband agreed on all issues during their first meeting, this attorney had no follow up calls to make and she never had to meet with their children. Complainant goes on to state this attorney wrongly calculated monthly child support and made repeated errors to a visitation schedule, requiring four revisions to paperwork. Complainant also states that this attorney never submitted paperwork to the state as promised, leaving the job for a new attorney and resulting in additional fees to complainant. Complainant writes: "If you need an efficient and reliable lawyer, I would not recommend Patricia Kievlan".

(Complaint 5): Complainant states that he Ms. Kievlan became his court-appointed GAL in a case against maternal grandparents over guardianship of his children. Complainant states that Ms. Kievlan "is a gender biased women's advocate" and helped inflame false allegations of mental and sexual abuse made by maternal grandparents. Furthermore, complainant alleges that Ms. Kievlan is misrepresenting herself as a licensed social worker because she "hasn't been licensed since 1995" and "failed to revew her license". Additionally, complainant writes this piece of advise for others dealing with this attorney:"File a complaint with the illinois division of professional regulation for her misrepresentation of herself as a licensed social worker at https://www.idfpr.com/dpr/FILING/Complaint.asp. Also, file a complaint with the illinois lawyers guild association, as all lawyers are required by law to respond to all filed complaints; file a discrimination complaint with the illinois attorney general's office; and you can also write letters to your state assemblymen, as well as your state senators, and your congressman. You can write your complaints to the head judge at the St. Clair County Courthouse; his name is the Honorable Judge John Bericevic and i have been assured that he reads all his mail, is fair, and will listen to what you have to say."

(Complaint 6): Complainant is a custodial parent who claims that this attorney, acting as a GAL, helped a non-custodial parent with personality disorders gain additional time with a child. Complainant claims that this attorney behaved too distracted, lazy, and arrogant to figure out what was going on with the child involved in the case. Complainant also alleges that she did not review pertinent evidence and made misrepresentations. Complainant writes: "She thinks she's psychic and can draw full fledged opinions based upon even just seeing someone with her eyes."

(Complaint 7): The following is the full text of this complainants rating. "Illinois courts appointed Patricia Kievlan as Guardian ad litum to my two children. I had been custodial parent to my children since my divorce in 2001. The Air Force transferred me to another state. I went to court for permission to take my children to live with me out of state. I met with Patricia Kievlan for a half an hour. After the meeting I became concerned by her lack of interest and disregard for what I was saying. She met with my children and ex-wife. I sent Ms. Kievlan pictures of my home and documentation of school and the advantages of my children living on the airforce base. I no longer heard from Ms. Kievlan. The day of court Ms. Kievlan acted more as if she was the attorny for my ex-wife than for my children. She questioned my current wife (my children's stepmother) and me on the stand. She did not question my ex-wife about very important subjects brought up in court. Throughout the trial she kept saying that both parties were very good parents, but still treated my current wife and myself with disrespect. When negative things were brought up in court about my ex-wife's parenting, Ms. Kievlan seemed to defend her instead of investigating or even asking my ex-wife about it on the stand. If she was truly for the children, I think she would have wanted to know about these negative situations. I was not allowed to take my children out of state and their mother is now the custodial parent, but if I was awarded the removal of my children, I would of still have this complaint about Ms. Kievlan. I feel she did not do her job well and took the easy way out with the least amount of work."

Wilson, Susan L.

214 2nd Street
Belleville, IL 62221

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that this attorney was hired for a custody case and that this attorney did not act in complainant's best interest by allowing the case to go to a notoriously bad judge, and by fighting only for joint-custody when the case for sole full-custody was good.

Dale Hunt

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges this attorney accepted payment of $400 to investigate an arrears matter; this attorney never carried out work as agreed and left the state without refunding his client's fee; is believed to be working in Ohio.

Swope, Jill S.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint comes from a former custodial mother who lost custody to father who she claims has been found guilty of abuse/domestic violence. Complainant states that this attorney was hired as a GAL and that after first reviewing the case, this attorney pledged to block abusive parent from gaining custody. However, this attorney allegedly then wrote a scathing report against the complainant, which contributed to loss of custody. Complaint also alleges that this GAL also requested hearings without providing complainant's attorney proper advanced notice. Complaint further alleges that this attorney failed to investigate the allegations of abuse and called her 6-year-old child "a liar". Complaint also alleges that this attorney worked on the case despite a conflict of interest: this attorney and complainant's children's stepmother know each other from college.

Toland, Shane

DO NOT RECOMMEND (1)

RECOMMEND (1)

Details:

(Complaint 1): Complainant hired this attorney as a representative in a visitation case. Complainant states that this attorney did not perform as discussed during initial consultation, and failed to properly communicate with client. Complainant states that his adversary in the case, a hostile custodial mother, made false allegations in court paperwork which could be easily disproved by evidence, yet this attorney failed to act in complainant's best interest. Complainant further states that he had difficulty locating this attorney on his court date, and that this attorney went in unprepared, eventually allowing the attorney for the custodial mother to determine visitation.

(Recommendation 1): Referrer states that he hired this attorney for a domestic battery case and that this attorney helped him with "everything and was instrumental in helping" him reconcile with his wife.

Handley, Larry

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details:

(Complaint 1): Complainant states that this attorney's representation and services were "unacceptable, incompetent, negligent." Complainant further states that the errors of this attorney resulted in costs of thousands of dollars. Complainant also states that this attorney behaved "dishonest" and did not communicate; complainant has filed a complaint with the Disciplinary Board and Fee Arbitration Committee.

(Complaint 2): Complainant states that this attorney completely mishandled case for college education subsidy and that he repeatedly failed to carry out client's instructions after assuring client he would. Complainant also states that this attorney gave misleading advice about mandatory attorney representation at mediation and that he made crucial errors at trial and at a hearing which likely cost client over $6000. Also, complainant states that this attorney promised to adjust his bill for these errors, but failed to do this. Complainant writes: "his communication, attention, service and effort were poor".

Daugherty, Jill Rauk /
Cordell & Cordell (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that this attorney was hired for her son who was trying to gain legal custody of his son after the child's mother, who allegedly suffers from a serious mental condition, fled with the child across state lines to Missouri. Complainant states that Cordell & Cordell first billed her for a $2500.00 retainer. Complainant states that the firm then billed her for serving papers which were never served (only attempted). Complainant further states that this attorney failed to gather adequate evidence for the case, and that the complainant was forced to do her own legwork. Complainant states that after her son finally called the firm to discontinue their service, they had a $800.00 balance on their account. Complaint alleges that this attorney then charged for every phone call and tacked on conference fees until complainant ended up owing $600.00. Complainant writes: "I asked them for documentation to back up these charges because 90% of the bill was for them talking to each other. I wanted to see the notes from these talks to justify the charges and all they sent is a bill of the dates and times that they talked, completely avoiding the issue that I thought the bill was padded."

Attorney Response: "We are focused on getting clients the best results possible but are still fighting stigmas in court that naturally see women in a better light. We work our hardest to improve the results for our clients. We would like to apologize for any mistakes that may have been made. We are always working to improve, and appreciate your insight. It is our goal to return any client calls, if made during business hours that same day. We also have created a client collaboration portal which allows clients to interact with their attorney, see billing statements and notes that are made on the cases. This allows you to see exactly what work is being done to your case and how much you are billed. We also are offering client care representatives to every client. If there is ever an issue with your case, please feel free to contact your client care rep, as it is their job to ensure your satisfaction and make sure that you are properly represented. We promise to do our best for all clients in the future."

Cordell & Cordell (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that this law firm continues to bill him for $18,000 in legal fees even though an attorney at the firm agreed to a settlement of $10,0000 and writing off the balance of his fees. Complainant states that he has written several emails to the firm proving this, and that the firm refused to acknowledge his correspondence. Complainant further states that this firm adds interest to his bill every month. Of this firm's service, complainant writes: "In my attorney's haste to complete the settlement with my ex, which I drew up, they did not advise me on my KS Quadro agreement costing me thousands of dollars in lost retirement pension fund."

Franzen, Steve

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that his case was complicated by negligent work performed by this attorney, and that it has taken him four years to straighten this matter out with the help of a new attorney. Complainant also states that this attorney behaves unethically, failed to properly advise about child support issues or shared parenting, and that he did not truly represent his client.

Gienapp, Laurie Axinn

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges failure to represent client's best interest in divorce and custody case; failed to address conflicts of interest surrounding court appointed GAL (guardian ad litem); failed to advise of constitutional and statutory rights; failed to seek full discovery of ex-wife's assets; withdrew from case 2 weeks before critical hearing; violated professional rules of conduct by informing the GAL of case details.

Attorney Response: "I understand that many supporters of NCP believe that the entire system is at fault....but a google of the name of the 'complainant' or even a google of MY name, will show that (the complainant) filed a formal complaint with the Federal District Court, and that complaint was dismissed. As an indication of one of the many problems with (his) complaints ... while it is absolutely true that I withdrew from his case, two weeks before trial, he has neglected to include the fact that he demanded I withdraw, and that at (the complainant's) trial, he reaffirmed to the judge that he had insisted I withdraw. I have represented many non-custodial parents, to their satisfaction, and I have obtained custody for several fathers."

Cunningham, Allison R. / Cordell & Cordell (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant alleges that this attorney (a senior partner of this firm) did not serve in the complainant's best interest and that she suppressed evidence of ex wife's child abuse from being seen by the court. Complainant writes that this attorney's profile on the Cordell & Cordell website states that "her attitude can and will influence her representation of your case -- not an obligation to the client or the law". Complainant further writes:"Cordell & Cordell is a 'Partner Men Should Avoid' as I witnessed for myself how these people will drag your case out for a year or more, and charge a minimum of $600.0 for their services even if nothing is happening in your case those months."

Attorney Response: It is always our goal to fight for your best interest, we are focused on getting clients the best results possible. We work our hardest to improve the results for our clients. We would like to apologize for any mistakes that may have been made and if the length of your case was drawn out to any extent. We are always working to improve as a firm, and appreciate your insight. As a firm, it is our goal to return any client calls, if made during business hours that same day. We also have created a client collaboration portal which allows clients to interact with their attorney, see billing statements and notes that are made on the cases. This allows you to see exactly what work is being done to your case and how much you are billed. We also are offering client care representatives to every client. If there is ever an issue with your case, please feel free to contact your client care rep, as it is their job to ensure your satisfaction and make sure that you are properly represented. We promise to do our best for all clients in the future.

Blackman, Robert

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges that this attorney is ineligible for practice by the NJ state bar due to nonpayment of fees. Complaint also alleges that this attorney charged complainant $11,000 for services, yet failed to appear in court on numerous occasions and mishandled case by late filing of brief. Also, this complaint alleges that this attorney fails to send out detailed billing statements.

Calandrillo, Elizabeth A.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: See complaint under Peter Laemers at the same firm.

Oswald, Carol / Teich Groh (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges that this attorney failed to perform as promised, was rude and demeaning to non-custodial father, and may have shared confidential information with complainant's opponent; complaint further alleges that despite not having performed as promised for her client, this attorney also ran retainer down to zero by billing very high charges for phone calls, emails, faxes, etc.

Laemers, Peter J.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that he hired this attorney expecting him to be in the courtroom. Complaint alleges that this attorney instead sent an unexperienced attorney in his place, Elizabeth A. Calandrillo. Complainant says that he was not properly represented and that his ex was permitted to relocated his children over 100 miles away, and that he was refused a plenary hearing. Complainant also states that he was unaware that these two attorneys -- and the attorney of his ex, Faith A. Ullmann -- attorney had just formed their firm together. Complainant states that no adequate defense was presented on his behalf even then the judge in the case asked: "Why shouldn't I grant the relocation?" Complaint further alleges that no parenting plan for visitation was presented (except for the ex's). Complainant writes: "Stay away from this firm- they are very unethical and will not represent you how they claim they will. Leamers outright lied. I signed, I paid, I never seen him again. His former firm actually is still billing me for thousands. They will not get a dime more and they shouldn't be allowed to practice after what they did."

Morris Downing & Sherred (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges head of firm promised to represent complainant, but later assigned "hired in" attorney for case. Attorney assigned to case failed to properly represent client; failed to make proper filings in timely manner and damaged complainant's case; complaint also alleges firm overcharged for its services.

Spinato, Michael

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges that this attorney received a $1500 retainer for his services in a child support matter yet never showed for a court appearance. Complaint further alleges that this attorney sent a young, possibly inexperienced attorney in his stead who failed to adequately protect the client/complainant; this attorney also allegedly failed to properly advise complainant about the amount of child support the court would eventually order.

Ullmann, Faith A.

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: See complaint under Peter Laemers at the same firm.

Certo, Peter

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that this attorney was hired as part of a custody case against an unrepresented defendent. Although complainant believes his case was "open and shut", he believes that the handling by this attorney caused his case to drag on for two years and end with unfavorable results. Complainant states that this attorney "spent more time worrying about higher profile cases" and failed to provide proper updates. Complainant also states that this attorney was "overconfident in his knowledge of the law and under prepared".

Hunt, Dale

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: See this attorney's record in the state of Indiana.

Mooney, Hillary

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges that this lawyer misrepresented client by encouraging him to sign an "interim" division of assets agreement which was designed to place proceeds from sale of house into lawyers escrow account until final agreement was signed. According to complaint, this was done despite attorney's advance knowledge that that opposing party was prepared to sign a final agreement and pay complainant for his share of assets. Complainant eventually learned that this attorney intended to hold the funds until "the final bill was satisfied". Complaint further alleges that after complainant refused to place funds in escrow account, he received a final bill from this attorney which was roughly three times what it should have been. According to complainant, these were >"clearly fraudulent charges for time that was overcharged because there was time stamped emails to refute her time. She ultimately accepted 1/3 of her final bill 'without admitting wrongdoing'".

Grove, Rebecca

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that this attorney billed $900 off a $1900 retainer for providing information in one meeting. Complainant also states that this attorney paper did not file papers or take any other action in the case, and that the services of this attorney were cancelled after four days. Complainant alleges that despite calling, leaving several messages, and sending e-mails requesting clarification of these charges, this attorney's firm has not provided any answers.

McMurray, Thomas

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complaint alleges that this attorney appears in court unprepared and is more concerned with "getting cozy with the opposing counsel". Complainant further alleges that he was "slaughtered" in court because of this attorney's complete negligence and that this attorney cancelled four appointments with complainant leading up to the hearing. Complainant also states that this attorney "came to court late and went straight to the opposing attorney and buddy buddied with him in the lobby while ignoring me, his paying client" and made statements indicating he did not care much about the case.

Sanchez, Samuel M. / Cordell & Cordell (firm)

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant states that this attorney was hired as counsel in a civil divorce suit, on short-notice and as a result of extensive ads on local radio stations. Complainant states that in one of these commercials, the owner of the nationwide firm, Mr. Cordell, claimed his firm would help save a marriage if that was the best option. Complainant goes on to state that during an initial consultation with this firm, he made known his primary goal was to enter into marriage counseling with spouse for reconciliation. Complainant also states that he informed this firm that his spouse was a potential flight risk and that he desired joint custody of their children in the case of failed reconciliation. Complainant states that no action was taken on any of these issues. Complainant further states that during initial consultation, he was told his case would cost no more than $2500.00 unless it went to trial, whereupon costs could rise to $5000.00; complainant paid a retainer of $2500 and an additional $175 initial consultation fee. After paying another $6000 in fees, complainant's case went to mediation with this attorney assigned to the case. Complainant alleges that this attorney "basically just sat there" while his wife was awarded sole custody of the children, almost half of his net pay for child support, one-third of his life savings, one-third of his 401k. Complainant further states that this attorney was ineffective in dealing with false allegations of child abuse, which resulted in reduced visitation with his children; allegedly, this attorney advised complainant to "jump through their hoops" of CPS and "play their game". After mediation was complete, complainant states that this firm billed for an additional $4000. Complainant states that when he called to inquire about this billing, he was told his case was still not closed and that the firm was working on a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Months later, according to complainant, the firm had not made any progress on this document and billed an additional $1000.00. Complainant writes: "I do not see any end in sight. Even though not every detail of my ordeal with Cordell and Cordell is included here, the gist of the situation is this: their advertising is false and misleading because my attorney did little, if anything, to represent my right as a parent and basically let my ex-wife have a very lopsided settlement ... Therefore, I believe that what they did was false advertisement and they committed theft by deception."

Ripka, Dorothy

DO NOT RECOMMEND

Details: Complainant writes that this attorney offered her services at $200 per hour, but then billed at a rate of $250 per hr. Complainant also writies that this attorney failed to give proper advice by not informing that an associate judge's decision can be appealed within 3 days. Furthermore, complainant alleges that this attorney's license was suspended from 9-1-06 thru 9-19-06, and that she still charged for her services during this period. Complainant writes: "Instead of having a clerk do all the typed letters and such, she did all the legal tech work herself and charged me $250 per hour instead of $40 per hour for a legal tech.