Home
> Family law attorney in 8101 E Prentice Ave Suite 475, Greenwood
> Cordell & Cordell Review
Cordell & Cordell
Family law attorney in 8101 E Prentice Ave Suite 475, GreenwoodReviews: 18 | Overal Rating: Bad
Excellect | |
Good | |
Average | |
Bad | |
Awful |
Reviews
Men please don't hire this horrible firm, go with someone who really does have your best interest at heart and ensures that your kids are protected. Divorce is hard, don't make it harder by choosing these losers as your law firm.
Thank you!
• My initial response was filed incorrectly with the court. I was initially charged to have this filing changed.
• I was charged twice on the same bill for the same fee.
• Expenses were added incorrectly to my Sworn Financial Statement on the “assumption” that I would have them.
• I was never told the details of the initial status hearing at court. I only appeared at the correct time and place because I asked the Petitioner.
• I was sent a letter that was clearly for someone else, and included their names and details.
• I would need to email or call Ms Dalton up to 5 times, over the course of a month, to get responses to questions. This was not a once-off, this was the usual course of events. I would be asked to resend information that I had already given.
• I informed Ms. Dalton that the Petitioner had transferred and concealed $18,000 from a joint account without my knowledge, and against the terms of our injunction. I did not receive even an acknowledgment. In fact, when I raised this point with Ms. Dalton at a later mediation, she seemed to have forgotten about it.
• It took 9 days for Cordell to forward a notice of a court cancellation.
• Ms. Dalton took 4 weeks to provide child support figures. I was unsure about a line, and asked her to clarify. No response. I made contact with her 5 days later. No response. 16 days after, Ms. Dalton asked about my case status, and I once again needed to ask her for clarification on the line.
• I asked Ms. Dalton to discuss filing discoveries. After 22 days, no response.
• I received a Joint Status Report filed with the court. However, as I was never consulted as to its contents, there was a major error with my filed position.
• I received another Status Report filed in my name, stating that I have agreed to issues that I had not.
• I received no communication regarding the tax law changes that could significantly impact payments.
• At my second mediation, I received almost no legal advice to support my position. I left the session with an agreement that other lawyers have described as “the worst agreement for a man I have seen in 20 years”. The following week, I was forwarded this agreement to sign. When I read the agreement, it had been changed by the Petitioner. I pointed this out, and had to show a highlighted copy of both the original and modified versions. This is something a lawyer should pick up before the agreement got to me.
• I received an email from Ms. Dalton informing me of news regarding my Parental Evaluation Report, but the email was meant for someone else, and had been sent to me by mistake.
After filing a formal complaint with Cordell and Cordell, they offered me a credit of one hour of Ms Dalton’s time. I did not accept this offer. We later reached a different agreement.
I am now filing a formal complaint with the Colorado Bar Association because I’ve realized that Ms. Dalton had failed to communicate with me regarding a request for informal discoveries – beginning a process which cost me $1,288 in additional legal fees to Ms Dalton. She profited from her failure, at my expense. I contacted her to inquire as to what had happened to the communication, and was initially ignored, then she repeatedly avoided my straight forward question (“Did you email me in November to forward on a request for informal discoveries?”). I was informed that Ms. Dalton could not communicate with me because it was a breach of ethics (my research did not indicate this to be true, and when I asked Cordell to clarify which ethic I was breaching, I received no response). Jerrad Ahrens, practice manager, then dismissed my concerns, stating that formal discovery needed to be done anyway, so Cordell essentially saw no issue with the situation (this is false, as the originally letter from opposing counsel clearly stated that the informal request was in place in order to specifically avoid costly formal discoveries).