1 /5 Nick OConnor: I hired Alex and Sam to represent me for a motion to reconsider in my divorce case, and their performance was completely unsatisfactory. Their work primarily consisted of taking a document I had already written, removing several relevant portions, and charging me nearly $14,000 for their minimal effort.
They spent almost $4,000 in "billable hours" repeatedly revising drafts of my original document. Despite our discussions and agreed-upon changes, they consistently reverted the drafts back to earlier versions, failing to incorporate the necessary updates. Not only did this reflect poor attention to detail, but they also double-billed me for their repeated failures.
Alex appeared unprepared and overly dependent on Sam for oversight, which resulted in significant inefficiencies and additional charges. When Alex finally appeared at the hearing, he was late, unprepared, and unaware of key details in the case. Critically, their fundamental legal strategy was flawed from the outset. Instead of advising the potentially more viable path of a motion for a new trial, they pursued a motion to reconsider – a route with a notoriously high bar for success that they should have recognized as unlikely to prevail in my situation. This poor strategic choice meant my $14,000 was spent chasing a losing battle they steered me towards. His combined strategic and procedural incompetence ultimately contributed to a costly financial outcome.
While Sam came highly recommended for real estate and estate planning, it is evident that neither he nor Alex has the experience or ability to handle divorce cases effectively. I would not trust them with anything beyond minor traffic violations based on my experience.
Updates:
** (April 25, 2025):** Furthermore, on April 24, 2025, this firm filed a $50,000 defamation lawsuit against me. This action appears to be a direct response to my posting truthful online reviews detailing my negative experience regarding their lack of professionalism, experience, and ability to represent me effectively. To reiterate the facts: they charged nearly $14,000 largely for editing work I had already completed while pursuing a weak legal strategy (a motion to reconsider instead of a more appropriate motion for a new trial), failed to incorporate agreed-upon changes, and showed up unprepared for court, contributing to a negative outcome. Now, I am forced to dedicate more time and resources to defend myself against what I consider a baseless lawsuit seemingly intended to silence my constitutionally protected freedom of speech. Its notable how quickly the firm mobilized to file this lawsuit, contrasting sharply with their previous unresponsiveness; when I was a paying client, it was difficult to get timely responses via phone or email, often only hearing back a day or mere hours before a crucial hearing. This lawsuit further underscores concerns about this firms priorities and professionalism.
** (May 12, 2025):** Today, the firm filed yet another procedural motion in the defamation case they initiated against me – this time, a motion for substitution of judge. Invoking 735 ILCS 5/2-1001(a)(2), they exercised their one-time right to request a different judge before any substantive rulings have been made. Given that the case is brand new and nothing of substance has occurred, their immediate use of this tactic raises further questions about their litigation strategy and motives. It suggests a potential attempt at judge-shopping or employing procedural delays rather than addressing the core issue – their performance as attorneys versus my right to share my truthful experience. This prompt filing serves as another example of the stark contrast between their current litigation activity against a former client and the significant delays and lack of responsiveness I faced when I was paying for their services.
