Steven Abraham Wolvek

Steven Wolvek

This was a very contentious case. Some things can not be commented about because of attorney-client privilege. I want to respect that but respond to non-privileged comments made in this review. I was the third attorney in this matter. The client was already facing sanctions for actions previously taken blaming her first attorney. She was also facing a support request. The discovery phase was allegedly closed by the time I took over and nothing was accomplished by her second attorney except some discovery was completed and some financial documents obtained. I agreed to review the case and spent my own time looking into it and drafting a detailed memo outlining what was done and what was needed before becoming the third attorney to represent the client. My office has a telephone appointment app and I never charge for telephone communications so I can stay in touch with clients and talk about their cases. I use this as a follow-up tool also so each step in moving a case forward can be verified. I believe I am one of only a few attorneys that does not charge for telephone communication or email communications with clients. Contrary to the review - a brief is not required but requested to be submitted sometime before a voluntary settlement takes place. This voluntary settlement took months to arrange because of the judge's unavailability and Covid. The brief was submitted about a week before the first session took place with all parties and the judge overseeing the settlement conference. Before the settlement conference took place documents were subpoenaed and a detailed review done and submitted to the client. The brief and issues raised from documents obtained were discussed in detail during Day 1 of the settlement conference which lasted was over 4+ hours and resulted in a partial agreement. An oral agreement was made to get a community property home appraised. I was successful in locating an appraiser who had court experience testifying on market values. That information was provided to my client. Nothing prevented that from taking place. The issue of support which would require an income and expense declaration was not part of the first day's discussion per an agreement between the attorneys. So an income and expense declaration was not needed. The court set this matter for a second day for a continued settlement conference. Prior to that second date, I was making another appearance on a different matter before the settlement Judge with the same opposing counsel. We both told the judge that the second date set did not appear on her calendar. The Judge apologized and told us it would have to be set on a different date because of her mistake in not putting it on her calendar. At no time did I ever request any hearing date on this case be continued. At no time was I not prepared to properly and adequately represent my client. Naturally, anyone would not be happy with a negative review of their services. However, this negative review is not justified in my opinion, and the comments made in this review are not accurate. Ironically - the person who referred this client to me retained my services after she decided to represent herself in this matter. Divorce cases can be difficult and emotional. I truly hope this former client is able to resolve her matter successfully which is my hope for anyone having to go through this process.