46 Client Reviews
Showing 11 - 13 of 13 reviews | Practice Area Knowledge
Posted by anonymous | April 12, 2013 | Child Custody
Family Law
Handled an out of state child custody case for me. Was up against a prominant attorney in Las Vegas with much more experience. Mr. Smith came out on top in court 5 times in a row. Was able to restructure and renegotiate an unequitable situation where 2 other attorneys could not. I would use his firm ...
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 Liz | February 10, 2020 | Hired Attorney | Family
Disappointed
We hired Kurt after talking with many attorneys by phone consultation. He seemed knowledgable and able to take on the case. Over the last month, the phone calls are being ignored and there was no thought for any agreements for certain time frames. For someone who does family law daily, the basi...
"Liz" is not a client. She is the mother of a client. Liz's complaint, however, is not accurate. In her daughter's case, her daughter settled her case, and agreed to two Visitation Plans - a pre-move plan valid for 3 months, and a post-move plan valid (ostensibly) until the child turns 18. Liz is upset that the pre-move plan her daughter agreed to while in Nevada did not include ADDITIONAL TIME for Visitation over the Christmas Holiday. AFTER the plan was entered as an Order of the Court, Liz, not her daughter the actual client, began contacting our office to request ADDITIONAL TIME over the Christmas Holiday. Liz then got very angry that we could not get the opposing party to agree to ADDITIONAL TIME. While I certainly understand Liz's concern, all clients need to be aware that once a deal is agreed upon and finalized with the Court, it is often very difficult to undo the deal that was made. For the record, Liz's daughter DID have time with the Child over the Christmas holiday. However, she did not have 1) as much time as she wanted, and 2) as much time as he was going to have under part 2 of the Agreement. Moreover, Liz's questions were answered in a timely manner - she just didn't get the answer that she wanted. That notwithstanding, it was a pleasure working with Liz and her daughter and we would happy to work with her daughter again in the future should the need arise. Liz was correct about two things, however. We do give great legal consultations and we are VERY knowledgeable.