I had a Order of protection case that I had Dan taking care of. At first I felt comfortable with Dan, but as the case moved forward, I felt less and less happy with him. The only regret I have at this point is ever hiring him in the first place. I would never recommend him to anyone!!!
Response from Daniel Galivan January 29, 2013
This post is from a client who already the Emergency Order of Protection (EOP) entered against him when he retained me. As is always my practice, the objectives of the representation were clearly established at the initial consultation. They were: Defend or vacate the EOP, protect the client from entry of a Plenary Order of Protection, secure access to the Petitioner's home to retrieve all of his personal belongings, secure the release of the client's rifle and FOID Card that were seized by the police, and avoid or defend any separate claims for back rent by the Petitioner. Every single objective, without exception, was achieved. We ultimately signed an Agreed Order disposing of the case by way of a Civil No-Contact Order that would not be entered against his record. The EOP was vacated, no Plenary Order was entered, I secured his repeated acess to the home (well beyond the limited period prescribed in the statute), all of his personal property was retrieved, as were the gun and FOID card, and he paid nothing to Petitioner on her separate claims for back rent. As I believe input from all clients is important, and in keeping with my efforts to always meet client expectations, I emailed a request to find out why he was dissatisfied with my services. No reply was ever received.