3.5 stars 6 totalWrite a review
Posted by kirkdavison
I waited a while before writing this in order to let the emotions of the situation die down.
In 2009 I was involved in an auto accident. Shortly after I had an aortic disection. Originally my cardiologist felt the accident was the most likely cause of the disection.
Over the course of a couple years the case finally came to arbitration with both sides agreeing to a low payout of $20,000 and a high of $100,000.
It was not until testimony started that I found out that my cardiologist had changed his view of causation based on pathology reports. He went from a likely cause to an 50/50 causation He stated this In deposition but I was not involved in this deposition. Our whole case was based on his original opinion and his change of opinion esentialy killed our case. The arbitrator even cited the 50/50 statement from my cardiologist as the reason for not meeting the preponderance of evedence.
My issue here is not winning or losing. It comes down to withholding pertinent information that became available. Instead of telling me what the cardiologist had said they hired an expensive expert witness who unlike my own cardiologist had never personally examined me and actually had little credibility with the arbitrator due to my own cardiologist being such a much more credible witness.
Had this information been properly presented to me we could of chosen to take the $20,000. The attorney instead opted to withhold this information from me until arbitration I believe looking to try to win the long shot ruling.
Out of the $20,000 paid out the law office received $6666 of it with $10,960 going to expert witnesses and the arbitrator leaving me just over $2000. Had the law office been exercising their fiduciary responsibility to me the case would of been over months earlier, they still would of received the same $6,666 and after expenses I would of received about $10,000 at a time that I could of really used it and stopped my mortgage from going into default . This law firm knows the law and is good at what it does but when deciding between the clients interests and theirs it became obvious which is of higher priority
Posted by Jennifer
I enjoyed working with the attorney Michael Montgomery and talking with Harold Carr. While my case didn't have the desired result, it was sufficient for my needs and I believe we had a biased arbitrator who aided the prosecuting attorney against me. I would recommend and seek this firm again if I ever have the need.
Posted by a client
Too long of wait for response from lawyer needed to be reminded to do work for my case. My opinion is no one cares over at Lakewood office ....work was too late and left me with more problems than solutions. Than they decide we cant represent you and leave me with the mess- thanks a lot for nothing. I'm going to find a lawyer that cares now.
Posted by MMJ
I contracted the firm of Harold Carr to handle a claim for a car accident recently. The case itself was small but important to me because I found dealing with the other insurance company was difficult.
The time between contracting Carr's firm and complete resolution was much shorter than I expected. I received more settlement than if I had taken the insurance company's offer. I consider that a great win.
Posted by Kathleen
Mr Carr is an excellent lawyer. He, and all his staff, are not only good lawyers they are also good, and caring people. I would recommend him to anyone. He will go above and beyond to get you anything he can.
Posted by Donna
After an injury my child suffered, Mr. Carr was able to get right to work and handle his case with the most care. My child now has a CD in his name that he will be able to use once he is 18. Thank you Mr. Carr!