Brooks Richard Siegel

I would not retain this firm again and would advise prospective clients to carefully evaluate their expectations regarding communication, responsiveness, and client support. From the outset, there were avoidable issues. During the initial intake process, I was disconnected/hung up on, and a schedu...led intake meeting was later missed without prior notice, follow-up, or explanation. These issues were not addressed proactively and set the tone for the remainder of the representation. Throughout the case, routine and reasonable questions frequently required multiple follow-ups over extended periods to receive a response, if a response was received at all. Phone calls routinely went unanswered and were not returned. Written messages were read without reply. When responses were provided, they were often brief, dismissive, or argumentative rather than explanatory. Early in the process, I was provided information regarding my rights that later proved to be inaccurate. When clarification was requested, the response was argumentative rather than corrective. Escalation to the attorney did not resolve these concerns. The interaction felt rushed and did not provide meaningful guidance, leaving important questions unanswered. There were also delays in handling reaffirmation-related matters, which required additional follow-up on my part to ensure the issue was addressed at all. These delays contributed to unnecessary uncertainty late in the process and reinforced the broader pattern of reactive rather than proactive case management. Additionally, motions were filed in my case without any notice or explanation to me. The only way I became aware of these filings was by independently monitoring the docket through PACER. Clients should not have to discover court activity in their own case through self-monitoring to stay informed. Communication appeared inconsistent and uneven. Billing-related matters were addressed promptly, while substantive case-related questions, filings, and procedural concerns often were not. As a result, I was left to independently determine and confirm basic procedural timelines and expectations that should reasonably have been explained during representation. Despite repeated attempts to engage, communication did not improve. The cumulative effect of missed appointments, delayed responses, lack of notice regarding filings, reaffirmation delays, and dismissive interactions significantly increased the stress of an already difficult legal process. While the legal outcome itself may be routine, the experience reflected systemic deficiencies in communication, professionalism, and client management. Clients who value timely updates, accurate guidance, and transparent communication may wish to consider other firms before retaining this one.

I recommend that you not do it as Per Se or on your own as I intended however after speaking with Mr. Brooks he assured me the process was more than just paperwork. I trusted him and he really did an exceptionally awesome job for me. Mr. Brooks assigned Danay Machado Senior Paralegal who listened and... explained the process. I was very upset because I should not be in this position being railroaded Tudor Cay Condominium Association. However it was nothing the law firm could do about that but as lawyer representing me. It was the best possible outcome. My credit score increased significantly afterwards. I must also mention Anoinet who is just great. I thank all of you who took care of me while dealing with this emotional mess. It is a tough thing to deal with but Totally worth the small fee to hire Mr. Brooks and his team. Thank you so much.