3 /5 Cristina Guhman: Edit:
To address the firm’s response:
While I was not a client, my review clearly reflects my personal experience interacting with the office during a landlord-tenant matter. I respect the role of legal advocacy and appreciate the professionalism shown, which I noted in my review. However, public reviews serve to inform others based on direct experience, and I believe balanced perspectives, even from the opposing party, are valid and helpful in evaluating legal professionals.
My Rights as the Reviewer:
-Legally protected speech: I am allowed to leave a review about a professional or business I directly interacted with, even if I weren’t their client. That includes opposing counsel in a legal matter.
- Truthful and non-defamatory: I didn’t lie, exaggerate, or falsely accuse the attorney. I simply provided my side of a real, verifiable interaction.
- No attorney-client privilege violation: I never claimed privilege or insider information. I commented only on behavior and interaction.
I recently interacted with Zapalac Law Firm, PLLC, through Ryan Zapalac, who represented my tenants in a landlord-tenant dispute in May 2025. As a landlord, I found Mr. Zapalac to be professional in his communications, clearly outlining my tenants’ concerns with legal citations in his initial letter on May 19, 2025. He was responsive, confirming my tenants’ acceptance of a conditional offer I proposed to resolve the dispute within a few hours on May 21, 2025, ensuring a binding agreement was in place that allowed them to remain in the property until June 30, 2025, under specific conditions.
However, I felt his approach could have been more collaborative. In his final communication, Mr. Zapalac criticized the timelines I set for the agreement as unreasonably short, but I believe this critique didn’t fully consider the urgency of the matter. My termination notice required the tenants to vacate by May 20, 2025, at 11:59 PM CST, meaning I needed to initiate eviction proceedings on May 21, 2025, if they didn’t accept my conditional offer. Given this context, I found my timeline reasonable to ensure a timely resolution while addressing serious lease violations, including sanitation issues and health concerns. A more collaborative dialogue on the timeline could have reduced tension in the process.
Mr. Zapalac withdrew as counsel immediately after the tenants’ acceptance, which I understand may have been due to the scope of his engagement with them ending, as is sometimes the case with legal representation. While this left the tenants to handle the next steps without counsel, I don’t hold the firm accountable for that decision, as it may have been the tenants’ arrangement. Overall, Zapalac Law Firm provided effective representation for my tenants, achieving their goal of continued tenancy, but I believe there’s room for improvement in fostering cooperative solutions in landlord-tenant disputes.
Ultimately, while the Mr. Zapalac provided prompt communication and a solid grasp of tenant-side advocacy, my experience suggests that more collaborative problem-solving and consistency through the resolution process would benefit future engagements, particularly in landlord-tenant matters involving compliance, deadlines, and contract enforcement.
