Corso Law Group PLLC

Chris C[redacted] as an attorney for any legal problems, he is your answer for any and all great outcomes. He is very caring and competent attorney. He was former district attorney for Maricopa County before getting his own attorney practice. Was completely kind and attentive on every aspect. His time frame was very exceptional. I would refer Mr. C[redacted] on any and all legal problems. He has forever changed our lives in a positive way. Our outcome was handled quickly and extremely professional. We will be forever grateful for his commentment and exceptional kindness and his constant reasureassurances. He is very honest and upfront on what he can or cannot do. He will never talk down to u or judge u in any way shape or form. Most attorneys r very arrogant and only out to get paid wether they win or not. Mr. C[redacted] made it very clear he was supportive and on our side. Always kept in contact keeping us updated on his end. We live in Lincoln Illinois. He made charges dismissed without us ever having to leave our home.

I used this law firm for my Criminal Speeding Ticket and they were great. My friend sent me to them because they successfully handled his divorce case.
I met with the owner and he explained everything. They were easy to work with and did not hide anything. They showed me how the case would typically proceed and made sure I was comfortable. My first time with a lawyer was easy. They make you feel at home, no stress during the initial phone call. Staff is friendly and professional.
My case was dismissed as they predicted. Try them, I recommend them all day long..

Scottsdale, AZ

I recently paid Chorso and Rhude to represent me in a basic DMV appeal case. They were great unit I gave them my money. After that it was hard to get a response or answers to my questions. The legal aid they would send me to never had an answer and would never returns my calls. 3 days before the hearing I spoke with the 3rd attorney that said he would be going to the hearing for me and advised me not to go so the judge would be more open about the case. I find out later someone else actually went to the hearing so I have no clue what they said on my behalf. After the hearing it took 5 days of me calling to get an answer as to what happened at the hearing. The answer they gave me was were still not sure what the DMV wants from you but you can reapply. They were supposed to help with my refilling when I asked to get my court papers they said it takes 2-4 weeks. I went down to the court house and got the paperwork myself within 10 minutes. I would have been better off not having them represent me. I’m still waiting on answers from them. I would advise using a different law firm or representing yourself before calling Corso & Rhude

I do not take the time to write many reviews so I would like to lay a little foundation as to why I'm writing this one. I do extensive research before selecting a service or a product and try to make the right decisions.

It seems today that every company who performs the least little service for us wants a pat on the back for doing their job. We are inundated with surveys of how did we do--you were chosen to participate in a survey--please rate our service. Requests and emails are sent asking us to spend ten minutes answering questions giving scores from 1 to 10 about everything from the representative's knowledge who assisted me to will you recommend us to your friends. I find it imposing and irritating.

When we pay for a service or a product, we naturally expect the service we pay for. You shouldn't need congratulations for doing what you're supposed to do. I don't think anyone who is unhappy about a service or product will need a survey to complain. It's frankly begging for compliments and downright annoying. I refuse most requests to participate or delete any I receive.

But when a company truly stands out from others however and goes above and BEYOND what I expect, then I am compelled to express a compliment because it is richly deserved and genuinely warranted. This is why I am writing this review.

The majority of law firms are happy to hear the details of your case after you have paid them for their time. When the money runs out, your time runs out. Corso and Rhude is uniquely different. They follow the tradition of old fashioned lawyers who are genuinely interested in helping you if they can.

My first phone call I was surprised, that even though the firm has several lawyers and associates, one of the owners of the firm is who took my call. This is also stated by other reviewers as well. He listened carefully to the details of my case and did not rush the conversation. He was encouraging that the information I provided was a wrongful charge that I was being accused of and that he would be successful in getting it dismissed. I was impressed enough that I followed it up with a visit to their office.

When he came into the conference room, he exhibited the same genuine concern and confidence after seeing my written materials. I was a victim of one of those money--maker red light cameras run by private companies that share the profits with the cities and are set up to fund the cities treasuries. I was outraged that I had received this notice in the mail.

Without making an outright guarantee that my ticket would be dismissed, he again took the time to point out all the favorable facts in my favor with the photo of me in my car, the inadequate markings of the intersection, the driving record I have and the relationships they have with all the appropriate personnel in the court. The track record that they have of winning the cases is extraordinary and both partners in the firm have been prosecutors with knowledge of exactly what they need to win their cases. I was never pressured or made to feel like I was an imposition on his time. He answered all my questions. I was convinced that my case was in extremely good hands and made the decision to hire them.

It was after my visit that the true efficiency of the firm became even more evident. I received emails, phone calls and advisories of every step that would be taken and who would be assigned to my case. First I received a phone call from the lawyer's assistant and then [redacted] the attorney called me. He went over all the details of my case and how they would proceed. He was exceptionally diligent in keeping me informed and providing me status reports--again conversations that were not rushed and sometimes well after normal quitting time of most offices.

As the progression of my case was ongoing, an incidental problem developed. It was resolved well beyond my expectations and beyond what I know would not have been the case with most other law firms. It showed the unprecedented integrity of this firm and I am very pleased to recommend this law office because of it.

My ticket was dismissed. It's like it never happened. I kept my ability to go to traffic school in case I receive another citation. My insurance was never notified and no points were assessed on my driver's license. Corso and Rhude couldn't have been more professional, courteous or efficient.

If you have not had the best experience with lawyers or may not hold a high opinion of attorneys as so many do, give this office a call. I think you will find that you will see a firm that is very different from the moment you first make contact. I certainly did. It will be my go-to law firm for anything I may need.

I have been convinced that I was not a client here--I was a victim of the system and they were going to make it right. They did.

I felt rip off by paying $500 to Get a traffic ticket reduced or taken of mi driving record but they achieve neither. Why advertise as traffic lawyers if the result are against you. And I still had to pay a fine to the Court. Worthless !

This law firm is excellent and I highly recommend their entire team. If you're looking for an established company that stands behind his work choose the firm. I liked the idea of having company and attorneys that have been tested in court and have a winning record. Customer service was perfectly fine, no issues in my representation, and they won my case like they said they would.

I hired this law firm to represent me in a criminal case in the [redacted] of [redacted] in Phoenix, Arizona. Prior to retaining them they talked a great game and had all the right answers. Upon paying them $5,000 and retaining them their words never came to life, they did not follow through on anything we agreed upon or discussed. All they did was request a bunch of continuances and drag the case out in their favor of not doing any work. Over a year later they tried to convince me to take a Plea Agreement in which could have been done with a Public Defender for free and in an effort to avoid them having to go to trial on my behalf. They did absolutely nothing on my case and were a total waste of time and money. I even ended up in jail on my trial date due to firing them. They put more effort into having me arrested as opposed to representing me even though I paid them to represent me! After reviewing them online I see they have done this to a number of people. Do not hire nor do business with them, I don't know how they are even still in business to this day

My family used Corso & Rhude for a Divorce Case.
They did a great job for us simply put.
Attorney [redacted] and my paralegal were positive, encouraging and skilled in this area of law.
I really felt comfortable with them from day one. They did the job right and my children and I are in a much better place now. The best thing I can say is that they really do care.
My family law team was able to simply help me through the toughest time in my life.
They did a great job and really cared.
They were sensitive to my children's needs and took care of us.
I found them by referral - one of their past clients that had a complicated divorce.
He told me that I needed a great lawyer - I had custody, support and property issues in my case.
He had used Corso & Rhude before and had a great experience.
They deserve 5 stars.
Thank You,
[redacted] - Scottsdale, AZ

I know Mr Rhude Personally, and he is one of the most genuine people I know as well as one of the best Attorneys in Arizona. He helped me directly and personally on my Traffic Citations, and directed and counseled me through each and every step. The staff of Legal assistants were amazing, and stayed up to date on each of my court dates , as well as stay in contact with me Weekly, or whenever I needed to speak. I would recommend The Law office of Corso & Rhude to anyone who would Like a great experience with a Lawyer

Review: Wow. I don't even know where to begin. There is no way they spent this much time, and they should have been able to determine a conflict of interest almost immediately, as there was an organized binder with a list of all witnesses readily available. This is a scam. This is a con. They NEVER attended a hearing, signed a notice of appearance, and never represented me in ANY WAY whatsoever. They did not even sit in as advisory counsel. They did not come get the file, they did not return the file (as promised). They did NOTHING they said they would do, and there is no way they reviewed the materials for hours as they claimed, as the DVD files were corrupted and they did not have time on the day we dropped the file off to them to do so before the hearing (and still make it to the hearing on time). I cannot even believe how these people are trying to cheat us. If they were moral, ethical, decent people they would do the right thing. They should never accept a payment without first determining any existing conflict of interest. I will file a complaint against them and let's let the good attorney sue them as he said he would. Please contact me ASAP. $2500 is a hell of a lot of money to throw away and get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in return, and I do mean NOTHING. This is insanity. I cannot see how they can sleep at night. I had to hire THREE different attorneys to represent me in this matter, and these attorneys did NOTHING. ZERO. NADA. ZILCH. Wow. The first thing an attorney should do before taking money is establish that there is not conflict of interest - not show up on the day of the hearing and tell you that there is a conflict of interest, they can't represent you, they aren't going to follow through on any promises made, and they are keeping all of your money! INSANITY! I would like my entire $2500 refunded as a good faith showing that what occurred here was completely unacceptable. The VERY FIRST THING an attorney should do before taking money from a client is determine that there is no conflict of interest.Desired Settlement: I would like my entire $2500 refunded as a good faith showing that what occurred here was completely unacceptable. The VERY FIRST THING an attorney should do before taking money from a client is determine that there is no conflict of interest.

Business

Response:

On November 25, 2013 [redacted] came to the Law Office of Corso & Rhude for a consultation regarding an

injunction against harassment hearing at the Tempe Municipal Court for that same afternoon. The hearing was

regarding an injunction taken out against Ms. [redacted] by a former coworker. The hearing had already

started with Ms. [redacted] being represented by other counsel, [redacted], on November 22, 2013.

During the consultation, Ms. [redacted] met with owner [redacted] regarding her case and the current status of the

hearing. Mr. [redacted] was explicit with Ms. [redacted] regarding the possibility that our firm would be unable to become

involved with her court case at its current stage. Mr. [redacted] explained why the judge may not

allow new counsel to become involved in the middle of the hearing as well as

the possibility that the judge would not grant a continuance of sufficient

duration to allow the firm to properly represent Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] understood that she was paying a

flat fee to the firm for the possibility of representation at the hearing

itself as well as preparation for the hearing as the firm attempted to become

involved. She was also aware of the fact that the risk of the firm not being able to appear on her behalf was a risk she

was taking and that the fee would not be refunded regardless of the firm’s

ability to proceed. Ms. [redacted] completed the hiring process with Mr. [redacted] and his assistant [redacted].

After the consultation was complete, Mr. [redacted] requested that Managing Attorney [redacted] handle the case

personally. Ms. [redacted]’s typical responsibilities for the management of the firm were put on hold and she went

to meet with Ms. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted]’s mother in the office for approximately

twenty-five minutes. During this time, Ms. [redacted] acquired a general understanding of what had taken place between Ms.

[redacted] and the petitioner in her case. Ms. [redacted] was provided with a three-ring binder of documentation by Ms.

[redacted] which was almost full and approximately two inches thick. The documentation ranged from personal

accounts of events by Ms. [redacted] to email correspondence from Ms. [redacted] to

various other parties. Upon completion of the meeting, Ms. [redacted] arranged to meet Ms. [redacted] at the Tempe Municipal

Court at 3:45 for the hearing as scheduled. Ms. [redacted] confirmed that she would attend in order to attempt to become

involved in the hearing and to request additional time from the Court to allow that to take place.

Ms. [redacted] began reviewing the documentation provided by Ms. [redacted] for approximately an hour and a

half. During this time, Ms. [redacted] completed a conflict-check of any names encountered in each document. Many documents were extensive summaries of

what had taken place and multiple pages of information. The conflict check and review of information

could not be completed in the short window of time provided. Ms. [redacted] left the office at approximately

2:45 p.m. to commute to the Tempe Municipal Court and meet with previous

counsel Mr. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] was present at court at approximately 3:15 where she continued to review documentation

until Mr. [redacted] arrived and both then met to discuss what had taken place in

the case as well as Mr. [redacted]’s ethical obligation to withdraw from

representation of the client. Ms. [redacted] then joined the meeting and all parties agreed to a two-pronged request

from the court to be executed by Mr. [redacted] as he was still the attorney of

record; (1) to request a withdrawal of the hearing request and allow Ms.

[redacted] to essentially start over and have a completely new hearing with new

counsel or (2) to allow Ms. [redacted] a sufficient continuance to allow counsel

to review the case and become involved for the remainder of the proceedings.

All parties proceeded into the courtroom at approximately 3:45 p.m. Mr. [redacted]

presented his motion to withdraw to the court and he and opposing counsel began

their independent oral arguments regarding the next steps; whether the judge

would allow Ms. [redacted] to have a new hearing, a continuance, or no time

whatsoever. The arguments continued for a period of time and then Ms. [redacted] was requested to approach the bench and also

assist in the judge’s decision. Ms. [redacted] informed the judge that she would request time to become involved and the judge

indicated he was only inclined to continue the hearing to the following day,

Tuesday, November 26, 2013 at 2:30 p.m. The judge asked Ms. [redacted] if she was prepared to avow to the court that

she would be the attorney of record for Ms. [redacted] and that she would be

sufficiently prepared to provide adequate counsel to Ms. [redacted]. Ms. [redacted] explicitly informed the judge that

she was still in the process of completing a conflict check in the case and

that a full understanding of the time involved to prepare for the hearing was not yet known. The judge did allow for

Ms. [redacted] to obtain the brief continuance to the following day and ordered

that the court disclose the audio recording of the first portion of the hearing

from Friday, November 22, 2013. Ms. [redacted] waited with Ms. [redacted] and Ms. [redacted]’s mother at the Tempe Municipal Court

until just after 5:00 p.m. for the audio recordings. During this time, Ms. [redacted] continued to

peruse the binder of documentation from client and recognized the last name of

one of petitioner’s witnesses. Ms. [redacted] walked with the client to the parking garage and then proceeded back to the Law

Office of Corso & Rhude to continue work on the case.

Ms. [redacted] reached out to associate attorney [redacted] during her drive requesting that he begin reviewing

the file with prior counsel in order to assist in preparing for the hearing. Ms. [redacted] also contacted owners

[redacted] and [redacted] for assistance in determining whether a

conflict of interest existed with regards to petitioner’s witness. Both owners began their own research to

determine if the witness was indeed the same person which would create such a conflict.

A meeting was held at the firm at approximately 5:45 p.m. regarding the case between Mr. [redacted], Mr. [redacted], Ms.

[redacted], and Mr. [redacted]. Based on the sheer volume of information contained in the client’s documentation as well as

Mr. [redacted]’s information obtained from previous counsel; a determination was

made that the firm would be unable to avow to the court that any attorney had

been given sufficient time to provide Ms. [redacted] with adequate counsel. Additionally, the potential of a conflict of

interest could not be ruled-out through the research completed by both owners

and, absent any clear information to the contrary, the firm was ethically obligated to treat such a situation as a conflict of interest.

Ms. [redacted] attempted to reach Ms. [redacted] at 6:15 p.m. on Monday, November 25, 2013 to inform her of the firm’s inability

to proceed and to discuss the return of Ms. [redacted]’s binder of documentation. The problem was that the judge would not continue

the case more than 1 day. Ms. [redacted] knew at the initial consultation that there was a risk that there would be no

continuance at all. She still hired our office assuming this risk and asked the firms staff to work numerous hours on

her behalf. The phone call made by Attorney [redacted] went straight to voicemail and Ms. [redacted] was unable to

leave a message due to the client’s inbox being full. Mr. [redacted] called Mr. [redacted] shortly

thereafter and informed the firm that Ms. [redacted] may have been detained for other reasons Mr. [redacted] had knowledge of.

On Tuesday, November 26, 2013, Ms. [redacted] attempted to call the client again. This

time, the call rang once and then proceeded to voicemail with a message that

indicated the voicemail inbox was still full. Ms. [redacted] then received a call from Ms. [redacted]’s sister, [redacted],

regarding the case. Ms. [redacted] informed Ms. [redacted] that she was trying to reach Ms. [redacted] regarding the inability of

the firm to move forward with the hearing scheduled that afternoon. Ms. [redacted] offered to deliver the binder of

documentation to any newly retained attorney or to the client directly as soon

as instructed by the client regarding her wishes. Within minutes, Ms. [redacted] called the firm

returning the call made by Ms. [redacted] previously.

Ms. [redacted] then informed Ms. [redacted] that the firm would be unable to

appear on the record on her behalf. Ms. [redacted] offered to look in to the possibility of serving as advisory counsel for

Ms. [redacted] if she was unable to retain new counsel but informed Ms. [redacted]

that Ms. [redacted] had already indicated a new attorney would be hired. Ms. [redacted] again offered to deliver the binder

of documentation to wherever the client needed. Ms. [redacted] explained the circumstances of the potential conflict of

interest as well as the lack of time to adequately prepare and Ms. [redacted] ended the call.

Ms. [redacted] called the office again to speak with the financial department and was then transferred to Ms. [redacted]

again. She indicated that the firm “better be there” and again insisted on obtaining additional information

regarding the potential conflict of interest, information which could not be disclosed due to potential attorney-client privilege. At approximately 10:30 a.m. a representation

of Ms. [redacted] came to the office to obtain the binder of documentation for the newly retained attorney. Ms. [redacted]

acquired the person’s information then called Ms. [redacted] to verify that it was her wish for the documentation to be given to the individual. An email confirming this conversation was

also sent to the client. The representation, Ms. [redacted]’s son’s girlfriend [redacted], signed a receipt of

documentation and took the binder with her. The firm’s involvement in Ms. [redacted]’s representation terminated at that time.

Ms. [redacted] alleges several issues in her complaint. They can be summarized into the following categories:

1. Timing to determine a conflict of interest

2. Not receiving or returning the file

3. Attending a court hearing

4. Time spent reviewing documentation

TIMING TO DETERMINE CONFLICT:

Ms. [redacted] alleges that a conflict of interest should have been determined prior

to the firm moving forward with any type of representation. Such an assertion plainly does not make sense

under the time constraints imposed by Ms. [redacted] not hiring the firm until

three hours prior to her court date. In fact, Ms. [redacted]’s own complaint indicates there was very little time between

the firm receiving her case and documentation and the hearing itself. The firm knew its obligations to complete

such a check in as timely a matter as possible under the circumstances and refrained from appearing as attorneys of record for Ms. [redacted] in order to

allow such a check to be completed. As stated above, while Ms. [redacted] did have her documentation in a binder, it was

approximately two inches thick and full of extensive pages of information with parties and witnesses named throughout. The

Law Office of Corso & Rhude took every step possible to assist Ms. [redacted] and to make any determination regarding a potential conflict in a timely

matter. Ms. [redacted] hired at approximately 12:45 p.m. on Monday, November 25, 2013. The potential conflict of interest as well as

the determination that the firm would be unable to adequately prepare for the hearing in such short time was determined by approximately 6:00 p.m. that same

day after the judge ordered, at 4:25 p.m., that a continuance of less than twenty-four hours would be all that was provided.

NOT RECEIVING OR RETURNING FILE:

Ms. [redacted]’s allegation regarding the file simply does not comport to the

facts. Ms. [redacted] provided a binder of documentation to the firm which must have been delivered in order for her to

allege it was not returned. The binder was provided at the consultation and subsequent meeting and was returned to Ms.

[redacted]’s approved representation the following day. The receipt signed by Ms. [redacted]’s representative has been attached hereto.

ATTENDING A COURT HEARING:

Ms. [redacted] indicates that the firm “NEVER attended a hearing.” Again, the allegation is blatantly

false. Ms. [redacted] was accompanied by Ms. [redacted] on Monday, November 25, 2013 from approximately 3:40 p.m. until 5:15

p.m. at the Tempe Municipal Court. As described, the firm did not appear as the attorney of record but Ms. [redacted]’s

attendance existed nonetheless. In fact, Ms. [redacted] has requested a letter from the Law Office of Corso & Rhude

confirming that she was in court on this date with our attorney for her personal use.

TIME SPENT REVIEWING DOCUMENTATION:

Ms. [redacted]’s allegation that the CD file was corrupted cannot be confirmed or

denied. The firm did not attempt to listen to the audio recording in its preparation. That recording was received at court and the

determination that the firm would be unable to proceed with representation was

made just forty-five minutes later. Ms. [redacted] did, however, spend extensive time reviewing the binder prior to the hearing

and Mr. [redacted] did begin reviewing the file and documentation in his conversations with prior counsel in order to determine what had already taken

place in the case and hearing.

Ms. [redacted] hired the Law Office of Corso & Rhude to try to get involved in her case to defend her against an injunction

against harassment. It was clear from the beginning that the firm could not make any promises regarding whether the

court would allow the firm to appear on the case and whether the court would

allow sufficient time for the firm to prepare in order to appear on the

case. Ms. [redacted] understood the risk she was taking when she hired the firm and agreed to a flat-fee representation

for the firm’s time; understanding that members of the firm were literally stopping

all other work in order to focus on her matter. The Law Office of Corso & Rhude followed its necessary obligations

regarding potential conflicts as well as candor to the court and determined it

was unable to move forward under the time constraints imposed by the judge.

Ms. [redacted] had a specific detailed

conversation at her consultation, with Attorney [redacted], regarding the

fact that a continuance would be needed. There was a great deal of information that needed to be reviewed.

Mr. [redacted] explained that he would NOT be handling the case personally and that portion of the agreement was underlined. Attorney

[redacted] further explained that the client was hiring our office to do our

best and review the extensive documentation and attend the hearing set for

later that afternoon. Our office acted in good faith and performed work at the client’s direction. Ms. [redacted] was attempting to hire a new

attorney during the middle of a hearing. This is highly unusual and it was explained that the judge may or may

not allow a new attorney on the case. Corso & Rhude was hired despite this conversation and instructed by

Ms. [redacted] to put other work aside and prepare for a Tempe Court hearing that

was scheduled that same day. Please dismiss this complaint. If there is additional information needed we are happy

to provide further documentation.

[redacted], Esq.

Corso & Rhude

These lawyers do a great job and are very honest in the process. It started with [redacted] who took my call and listened to me. That sounds like a small thing, but she really made me feel at good about hiring them. I spoke to one of the owners, [redacted] and I was called by my legal assistant the next day. They were easy to hire, did it by email since I am a busy executive and could not just drop everything at work. They did what they said they would do and simply helped me. I was referred to this firm and my friend had a great experience also. Im writing this because they made a difference in my life and helped me.
Thank you so much, five stars.. Great company. [redacted] Scottsdale, AZ

BEWARE!!! Do NOT do business with!!! These people are scam artists to say the least. They will promise you all kinds of things to get your money and upon taking your money nothing will be done except trying to get you to sign a plea which could've been done for free via a Public Defender. I am not even sure with all the complaints they have how they are even still in business or able to practice law. Take my advice and don't waste your time or money and learn from my mistake!!!

I hired this law firm to represent me in a DUI case in [redacted]. Prior to retaining them they talked a great game and had all the right answers. Upon paying them $5,000 and retaining them their words never came to life, my case was assigned to an attorney who left the firm 4 weeks after getting my case. I received and email stating that my case was being handled by a new attorney who was their DUI "specialist", and that he was very diligently breaking my case down to achieve the best result. My first phone call with my new attorney was on a Friday morning in April of 2014, before my initial appearance, and his first question to me was if I was still in jail. If he had bothered to read my case, he would have seen that I was released the day after my arrest in August of 2013. At my initial appearance, my attorney joked that he could be in [redacted] in three hours after leaving court. As far as I can tell, my attorney did next to nothing on my case; I was offered a Plea Agreement in July of 2014, which could have been done with a Public Defender for free and in an effort to avoid them having to go to trial on my behalf.
I sent an email to [redacted] detailing my concerns with how his firm was handling my case. [redacted] forwarded the email to my attorney, who sent me a rather nasty email stating that he was doing the very best he could. He even took the County Prosecutor's side in the case saying that if he were the prosecutor that he would have not even have offered me a deal. I spoke with several attorneys in the [redacted] area and told them I had retained Corso and Rhude, almost every response was: "Oh, those guys", three different DUI attorney's in [redacted] stated that Corso and Rhude has a great PR department, but, they have a very unique way of interpreting the law. This firm wants to plead everything out rather than go to court. After reviewing them online I see they have done this to a number of people. The other attorney's I spoke to say the plea offer I received from the County Attorney was a "Trial Offer", meaning that was the sentence I would most likely receive if I went to trial and lost. The County Attorney in my case, had not done any interviews, nor had my attorney done any defense interviews on my behalf. I accepted a plea bargain, however, what was very disappointing was the fact that there were numerous errors on the plea agreement that had to be corrected in court. I noticed a couple of errors that my attorney and the county attorney and the presiding judge missed. When I called attention to the errors, all my attorney could say was: “Nice catch on seeing the wrong dates”, if I had an attorney that knew what he was doing, he would have caught them instead of me. This example just reinforced my opinion that all my attorney did was put my case in a desk drawer and forgets about it, until he had to appear in [redacted].
Do not hire nor do business with them, I don't know how they are even still in business to this day.