Keith L Altman

I retained K Altman Law to represent my daughter in a complex student discipline matter involving a charter school. Before the representation began, I paid a $300 consultation fee followed by a fixed legal fee of $13,000, expecting experienced representation that would help correct her school record ...and pursue meaningful relief. Over the course of the representation, my case was reassigned 3 times to another attorney. As a client, I felt I had to repeatedly bring new attorneys up to speed, and I never felt that one attorney had complete ownership of my case from beginning to end. That lack of continuity made it difficult to feel confident that every attorney fully understood the history and complexities of the matter. During the representation, one attorney told me they believed there was sufficient evidence to sue the school. They explained how such a lawsuit could proceed and even discussed the potential damages that might be sought. About two weeks later, after very little communication, I was informed that litigation was no longer being pursued. When I asked why the firm's position had changed so dramatically, I did not receive an explanation that I found satisfactory. The firm participated in hearings, appeals, and communications with the school. However, after nearly two years of representation, none of the primary objectives for which I retained the firm were ultimately achieved. My daughter's disciplinary record remains unresolved, the school was not held accountable, and the firm declined my request for any refund or fee adjustment. I understand that attorneys cannot guarantee results. However, after investing $13,300 in this representation, I expected greater continuity, clearer communication about major strategic decisions, and a more meaningful outcome. Parents facing a school disciplinary matter should carefully discuss who will be handling their case throughout the representation, how major strategic decisions will be made, and what they can realistically expect before making a significant financial commitment.

While schools may take a student more seriously when an attorney becomes involved, I strongly regret choosing K Altman Law. Before retaining the firm, I gave Attorney Altman an accurate account of my situation because I wanted an honest assessment of whether my case had a realistic chance. Instead, I... felt persuaded by confident language and promises that were not reflected in the representation I later received. Despite my instincts, I paid a $16,000 flat fee. In my experience, the agreement functioned like a checklist allowing the firm to say it completed certain tasks and retain the entire payment, regardless of whether its advocacy advanced my case. Early in the representation, Assistant Director Robert Wright mistakenly forwarded me another person’s name and some case details in which I have proof of. This immediately raised concerns about confidentiality, carelessness and whether my own information could be shared with someone else. Many services in the package were tasks I could have completed myself, including requesting educational records under FERPA and sending letters to school administrators. I had already prepared appeal drafts, and it appeared much of my language was reused with only minor changes. Although the firm promotes itself as experienced in student defense, much of the work felt generic. I also communicated primarily with a “defense advisor” instead of an attorney. Communication was disappointing. I rarely felt like a priority and sometimes had to contact the firm for information it already possessed rather than receiving updates. The firm communicated with my former school’s general counsel, but the meeting was not recorded and I was not shown the emails. I therefore could not verify what was said, which arguments were made or how strongly my position was advocated. My impression was that the firm simply only asked the school to reconsider. Once the school maintained its position, the firm appeared to accept that answer quickly and rely on having technically completed the listed services. I did not feel there was a meaningful effort to challenge the school, negotiate a better result or explore additional options. At the most urgent stage of my case, the attorney assigned to me left the firm. I was not informed beforehand, which prevented me from making an informed decision about whether to continue. I was simply told my case would be transferred. This raised concerns about continuity, who had access to my files and why attorneys appeared to leave during critical stages. I later saw another review describing a similar experience. The price was difficult to justify. At the average attorney hourly rate of $350 per hour, a $16,000 fee represents approximately 45.7 hours of work. Based on what I observed, a limited review, communications and two measly letters, I do not believe my case received anything close to that amount of attorney time. Assuming around 8–10 hours were spent, which is what I would expect, the effective rate would be approximately $1,600–$2,000 per hour, without litigation. The separate $350 consultation fee for a call lasting about 30 minutes or less also felt excessive. I also noticed multiple negative reviews that conveniently disappear. This made me concerned that more effort was being directed toward managing criticism than addressing why former clients felt dissatisfied. I know the firm will respond that it “respectfully disagrees” nonsense that they typically respond with, but that does not change my experience. Overall, I experienced poor communication, confidentiality concerns, limited transparency, unexpected attorney turnover, generic work and fees that seemed grossly disproportionate to the services provided. I felt persuasive promises were used to obtain a large upfront payment, followed by limited advocacy once the firm was retained. Students should seek multiple opinions, carefully review the scope of services and consider a firm that is honest.

This review is not being written impulsively or simply because I did not receive the outcome I hoped for. I waited, reflected on the entire experience, and ultimately hired another law firm before deciding to share what happened. Based on my experience, I strongly recommend avoiding K Altman Law. ...I initially paid a $500 consultation fee for a 30 minute meeting with attorney Keith Altman. I requested a Zoom meeting because I wanted to see and speak directly with the attorney who would potentially handle my case. A Zoom meeting was arranged only after I indicated that I would otherwise request a refund. During the consultation, I tried to explain my medical school dismissal and asked whether the firm genuinely believed it could help me. Mr. Altman repeatedly interrupted me and did not allow me to fully explain the situation. The scheduled 30 minute consultation ended in less than 15 minutes. He told me that he would take my case and represent me for $15,000. I made it clear that I did not come from money and could not afford to spend that amount unless the firm truly had a reasonable strategy. I sold my car and placed the remaining balance on a credit card because continuing medical school was extremely important to me. Before I received or reviewed a representation agreement, the firm contacted me multiple times requesting payment. After I paid the full $15,000, I received an agreement stating that much of the advocacy would be handled by a non-attorney, with an attorney becoming involved only if necessary. That was not my understanding of what Mr. Altman had represented during our Zoom meeting. When I questioned this difference and asked about a refund, I was told that work had already started and that I would receive only a partial refund if I ended the representation. At that point, I felt financially trapped and continued with the firm. My first non-attorney advocate, Barbara, was personally kind and professional. However, the initial letter to the school was drafted by a non-attorney, was not signed by an attorney, and required substantial edits and additions from me. The letter was sent to the school’s general counsel, but it did not produce any meaningful response or progress. Barbara later left the firm, and my case was transferred to another non-attorney advocate, Robert Wright. Communication then became extremely poor. Responses sometimes took weeks, and I frequently did not know what was happening with my case. An attorney named Ms. Garcia was also assigned to the matter. When I asked questions, I was repeatedly told that she would need to research the issue and get back to me, but I often did not receive a follow-up. Throughout the representation, I did not receive a single substantive letter signed by an attorney and sent to the school. During my original consultation, Mr. Altman told me that he would first try to resolve the matter internally by arguing that dismissal was excessive for a first-time professionalism issue and requesting that the sanction be changed to probation. I also understood him to say that litigation could be considered if the school refused. This understanding was a major reason I agreed to pay $15,000. However, after payment was made, I never had another conversation with Mr. Altman. The most concerning part of the experience was the difference between what I believed I was agreed upon during the consultation and the service I received after payment. I believed I was hiring Mr. Altman and receiving direct attorney representation. Instead, most of my communication and advocacy were handled by non-attorney staff, and communication from the assigned attorney was limited and inconsistent. I later hired another law firm that did not charge me a consultation fee. That firm took the time to understand the facts, communicated clearly, and handled the situation in a much more professional and effective manner. My issue was ultimately addressed by a different firm.