Marc J Mastriano

I hired Marc for a serious family-law enforcement matter involving substantial financial claims. I told him from the beginning that I believed I had one real opportunity to get this right. He knew the stakes, knew significant money was involved, and knew what I was hiring him to pursue. The proble...ms started with the initial RFO. I had specifically discussed financial, enforcement, fiduciary, and MSA-related issues that I wanted addressed. In my opinion, the filing failed to adequately include and preserve important issues I had hired him to pursue. That created problems that followed me throughout the case. Discovery was another disaster. Critical financial information was incomplete and deficient. I repeatedly raised this with Marc. More than once, he told me in writing that if the deficiencies were not corrected, he would file a motion to compel. He never did. Instead, the case continued while important financial discovery remained unresolved. Eventually, opposing counsel pursued a motion to compel against me while I still did not have the financial information necessary to fully pursue my own claims. Near the end of Marc’s representation, he again said we would file our own motion to compel, only for opposing counsel to assert that the deadline had already passed. I could not believe the position I had been put in. This was my enforcement action, yet I felt Marc allowed opposing counsel to repeatedly gain the advantage while he failed to follow through on things he had specifically told me he would do. Communication was equally frustrating. Marc was essentially unavailable for approximately two months while on paternity leave. I have absolutely no problem with someone taking paternity leave. My problem is accepting responsibility for a complicated, high-stakes case and then not ensuring adequate communication, continuity, and coverage while you are gone. I repeatedly tried to find out what was happening. Important matters stalled. When he returned, I felt like I was being billed additional money to get the case “back on track” after problems had accumulated while he was unavailable. I increasingly found myself doing things I was paying an attorney to manage: identifying unresolved issues, organizing financial information, chasing discovery, requesting updates, asking about deadlines, and repeatedly questioning why promised actions had not occurred. By the time his representation ended, I believe he had put me in such a deep procedural and financial hole that it was virtually impossible for another attorney to completely get me out of it. A new attorney cannot rewind a case, recreate lost leverage, undo discovery failures, or easily repair issues that should have been properly presented and preserved from the beginning. Before hiring Marc, I believed I had a realistic path toward recovering at bare minimum $100,000 and potentially 3X substantially more based on the claims I was pursuing. I understand perfectly well that no attorney can guarantee an outcome. That is not my complaint. My complaint is that I believe the way my case was initially presented, the discovery failures, lack of follow-through, communication problems, and the position I was ultimately left in materially damaged my ability to pursue that recovery. After years of additional litigation and professional expenses, I ended up financially in the red. After the case finally concluded, I reviewed the emails, filings, discovery history, and communications and sent Marc a detailed written demand explaining my concerns. I gave him an opportunity to reimburse me for only a portion of what I believe his representation cost me. I wasn’t even asking to be made completely whole. He did not provide a substantive response. To me, that lack of response perfectly reflected one of my biggest problems with his representation: a lack of accountability and follow-through when it mattered.