DO NOT USE THEM. It would appear the lawyer they retained for family law (Mrs. Barclay) should not be in practice or be retired. You can see the burnout or lack of caring (she self admitted that she no longer cared about complaints while at the same time, receiving many of them). In essence, the only thing they may have excelled at are uncontested matters. Apparently, they only have one lawyer to work on family cases. When I determined that I was the recipient of ineffective counsel or ethical wrong by Mrs. Barclay, I tried working with the attorney directly in the course of the proceedings, and then ultimately addressed these concerns of ineffective counsel to the law firm owner. I expected that there would be a concern given, but there was not. I was advised by the law firm owner (Mrs. Ranney) that she could not help, considering her and her husband's background in family law was limited. Given that I tried to rehabilitate our relationship with clear expectations, I was further denied service by Mrs. Ranney due to my complaints or concerns that were credible enough to be reported to the Virginia Bar. I sought return of my retainer at the least (realizing they must be paid for some effort even if it were unscrupulous) However, this was never answered. Counsel in this matter was critical, due to a wife who absconded with my children over a decade ago and denied custodial or visitation. The issues I faced are not limited to:
1) Last minute discovery and poor communication. Whether about admissibility, facts or case direction and intentions.
2) No use of subpoena duces tecum to corroborate findings.
3) Allowing unsupervised interrogatories by GAL or court appointed staff.
4) Failure to make disclosures of evidence or submit interrogatories. No evidence was reported by judge!
5) Failure to proceed on the wishes of client during trial, threatening to leave the case and ultimately causing a show cause to be vacated.
6) Threatening abandonment numerous times over minor disagreements.
7) Fails to immediately recognize and object to inadmissible evidence.
8) Allows opposition to run all over the case. Rolling over at any concern raised by GAL or opposing party. Hesitant to make any push for justice, or seek recompense.
When contacting other law firms to represent in the appeal, it was clear they were "known" as having difficulties in family related cases.