$ 300-450 per hour
PRO
Virtual Consultation Available
I first moved to Nevada in 1991 and have lived here exclusively since 2001. I have been married for 20 years and have three children. My oldest child just started college and I have a Junior in High School and an eighth grader. My family is the most important thing in the world to me and I work very hard to protect my clients' families, just as I would if it were my own.
6
Practice Areas
$ 300-450 per hour
State: Nevada
Acquired: 2007
Lawyer disciplined by state licensing authority in 2018
46 Client Reviews
Showing 6 - 10 of 12 reviews | Trustworthiness
Posted by anonymous | March 16, 2015 | Child Custody
Not your Typical Attorney- In a great way
First let me start this review by saying I have one of the toughest cases to under take. Not only am I up against big names in the legal industry that do not pay legal fees- but are extremely experienced. I have retained some of the most well known senior attorneys in custody matters prior and NONE...
Posted by anonymous | January 22, 2015 | Divorce & Separation
Great Divorce Attorney!!!
I live outside of the United States but my wife lives in Nevada. I was in need of a Divorce, but I didn't want to spend an arm and a leg to get it done. I found Attorney Smith on line and contacted his office. Mr. Smith was kind enough to give me a free consultation over the phone. He explained m...
Posted by Roz | October 07, 2014 | Family
A Need For a Trustworthy Family Lawyer Came Through......
I needed some family legal help with extremely shorty notice. I had no idea who to reach out to and had limited time to figure it out, which felt overwhelming and stressful. I reached out to a few recommended lawyers but got no reply in the time frame I needed, so I randomly looked up family law. ...
Posted by Luis | January 07, 2025 | Hired Attorney | Child Custody
Catastrophic mistake. I’d give 0 stars if it were an option.
Kurt and Mr. Woo both lacked empathy and understanding. I’ve paid $11k and in return they did… nothing really. Trial lasted 5 minutes! I file for joint physical and legal custody with child support being offset to determine the amount. Felt like it would be fair. Defendant does not provide a FDF. I ...
Mr. Echeverria's comments are disappointing, but not altogether unexpected. Mr. Echeverria came to Smith Legal Group on a case involving Custody and Child Support. Mr. Echeverria's goal, in retrospect, was to get as much time with his Child as he could, but to pay no Child Support. While both goals are possible, nothing is guaranteed. Mr. Echeverria was accused by opposing counsel of having spent very little time with his Child over the years. When the case originally went to Court, based largely on the text messages of the Parties which showed that Mr. Echeverria was not present very often and that he was verbally abusive and dismissive to his ex, the Court started Mom with Primary Physical Custody. Even at that point, however, we were able to convince the Court to reduce Mr. Echeverria's Child Support to an amount much closer to that of a Joint Physical Custody award. Although we obtained a set schedule for Dad and the Child and got a reduction in his Child Support obligation, Mr. Echeverria fired my firm and began leaving bad reviews for me whereever he could think to do so. Several months later, however, Mr. Echeverria called my office and apologized for being as rude as he was. He then hired my office to represent him a second time at trial. When the date of trial came, we went to Court, but tried a last ditch effort at negotiating a resolution with opposing counsel. Ultimately, however, Mom was not willing to provide Mr. Echeverria with more time with the Child. She did, however, offer to significantly lower his Child Support obligation if Dad would allow her to maintain Primary Physical Custody. The negotiations lasted about an hour and a half, but ultimately, Mr. Echeverria was faced with two choices - take a lower Child Support amount and keep the time that he had with the child, or proceed with the trial and fight for Joint Physical Custody. However, I forewarned him that if we went to trial, the Court would likely raise his Child Support obligation - even if he won Joint Physical Custody. Ultimately, Mr. Echeverria had a choice - take a much lower Child Support obligation or fight for more time. Although Mr. Echeverria struggled with the decision, ultimately he decided that the lower Child Support obligation was more important to him than having additional time with his Child. Accordingly, we settled the case, went into Court, and placed a Stipulated Custody Order on the record that maintained Mom having Primary Physical Custody with a lowered Child Support obligation for Mr. Echeverria. The Judge accepted the terms and the case was closed. Unfortunately, IMMEDIATELY AFTER COURT Mr. Echeverria stormed out of the courtroom and stated that he was no longer happy with the terms that he had agreed to and that he wanted to fight for more time. Mr. Echeverria was informed that he had just resolved the case less than 60 seconds prior and that the Court would not reopen the case unless something major happened that required a change. That made Mr. Echeverria very angry and he began accusing my office of misrepresenting him. I wish Mr. Echeverria luck in his future endeavors. But it is Mr. Echeverria who decided what was more important to him - more time with the Child or a lower Child Support obligation. It is Mr. Echeverria who accepted the terms of the Settlement. He could have gone to trial. However, he was not willing to do so if it meant that his Child Support obligation might increase.
Posted by Holly | March 17, 2016 | Hired Attorney | Lawsuits & Disputes
KEEP LOOKING
Think TWICE & move on before retaining this attorney! Especially if you expect professionalism, communication & value for your money. My first clue should have been the poorly written demand letter. Little wonder it didn't have the desired effect. Neither did my call to his office asking ...
Holly is a client that first came to my office on June 23, 2015. She was having issues visiting with her grandkids that she felt had to be resolved by mid-July 2015. After listening to her issues, we developed a plan that included initiating a Grandparent's Rights Visitation action, filing a Motion for said visitation, and attempting to expedite the hearing with the Court so that her deadline could be met. I explained that it was imperative that we act immediately, as a failure to do so would result in the Court not having time to hear her case before her deadline. Holly fails to mention that despite her urgent need for legal services, she could only come up with a highly reduced retainer fee. Notwithstanding her need for expedited legal services and inability to come up with a full retainer, I agreed to take Holly's case. Holly hired my office on June 25, 2015, at which time I immediately assigned my staff to begin working on her case. On July 2, 2016, Holly changed the plan. Rather than immediately submitting the legal paperwork that we had drafted, Holly decided she would rather first send a Demand Letter to the opposing party. She then demanded to review the letter prior to its submittal. It was explained to Holly that 1) in this circumstance, a Demand Letter was unlikely to be effective and 2) changing the strategy mid-stream like this was likely going to make meeting her stated deadline impossible. Holly indicated that she understood and the new strategy was implemented. The Demand Letter was drafted and submitted to Holly, who sent it back with requested changes due to her fear that the tone of the demand letter was overly harsh and she didn't want to hurt the opposing party's feelings. The revisions Holly requested were made and the letter was submitted. Not surprisingly, Holly's Demand Letter was ineffective and Holly's deadline was missed. In fact, Holly's deadline came and went and Holly never gave the office the permission to file her legal papers. My office kept in touch with Holly over the next few months. Holly was having many of the same ups and downs with the opposing party that she was having prior to coming into my office. However, she could never quite bring herself to file the papers that we had drafted for her. On September 5, 2015, I emailed Holly informing her that we had not heard from her in a while and asking her what she wanted to do with her case. On September 7, 2015, Holly emailed me back asking us to hold off, as she was having second thoughts, but thanking us for the great work that we had done so far. On November 13, 2015, Holly contacted my office, informed us that she no longer wanted to proceed with her case, and asking for a refund of her retainer fee. My office manager informed Holly that she was entitled to a refund of all unused retainer fees, which at that point was $269.51. Holly became irate. She felt that even though she had hired my office to do legal work back in June and that my office, pursuant to her request, had drafted the legal documents requested, because she hadn't used the documents, she shouldn't have to pay for them. Holly claimed to have asked me to hold off on all work during one of our conversations about her case in August 2015 (so much for not being able to get a hold of me). Holly was reminded that she had hired our office in June 2015 and that we had begun our work immediately. Accordingly, even if Holly had requested us to stop work in August, she would have had to pay for the time spent drafting the legal documents for her in the June/July timeframe. To date, we have sent Holly a retainer refund check approximately three times. Holly keeps sending it back demanding a full refund. I appreciate Holly's compliment regarding my calm demeanor and confidence. We do excellent work, but we do need to be paid for the work that we do. We generally do not offer refunds for work that has already been completed.
"I endorse this lawyer. Kurt is a knowledgeable and compassionate attorney who zealously advocates for his client. As opposing counsel, Kurt always promptly responded to my calls and worked toward resolution."
"I highly endorse Mr. Smith. Truly exceptional and caring attorney who produces great results in representing clients! I want all people with legal problems to contact him first."
"Mr. Smith is a highly skilled and competent attorney. He is courteous and professional and does an excellent job zealously representing his clients. He his a credit to our profession and I am pleased to call him my friend and colleague."
Family lawyer
Unknown lawyer
Child custody lawyer
Child custody lawyer
Family lawyer
Child custody lawyer
Unknown lawyer
Family lawyer
This lawyer was disciplined by a state licensing authority in 2018.
Public Reprimand issued in NV, 2018
updated on 12/07/2018Public reprimand means an attorney did something wrong but may still practice law. The State gives the lawyer a public reprimand in hopes that he or she will not repeat the behavior. Details of the infraction are made part of the public record.
2014
Client Choice Award, AVVO
2011 - Present
Attorney/Owner, Smith Legal Group
2009 - 2011
Attorney/Partner, Smith & Kim Attorneys at Law
2006 - 2009
Associate, Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll
2007 - Present
Nevada State Barattorney member
2007
JD - Juris Doctor
1999
BS - Bachelor of Science
2007
Family Law
English
French
Legal Answers
Family law judge ruling by 9/15/21 no ruling made. Is there a time limited for this?
29 Oct 2021
What happens with child support cases when the other parent left the country?
02 Oct 2019
Childs mother sent me a text saying her mother's going to make her commit suicide. Can i use this as leverage in family court?
02 Oct 2019