Brittany Danielle Forrester

My experience with Tully Rinckey, and specifically with Brittany Forrester, left me extremely disappointed, particularly when comparing the cost of representation to the actual level of service, preparation, and advocacy I received. I retained this firm for a complicated matter and remained with t...hem for just under two years. After that amount of time—and after paying substantial legal fees—I expected my attorneys to have developed a deep command of the facts, evidence, procedural history, and strategy of my case. Instead, I repeatedly found myself doing much of the substantive work myself: reviewing evidence, identifying contradictions, organizing the record, researching issues, developing arguments, and preparing material that I believed my attorneys should already have been driving. The biggest problem, in my experience, was the firm’s overwhelming emphasis on monthly billing. I constantly felt that meeting billing requirements and generating monthly charges took priority over actually advancing the substance of my case. Every communication, discussion, review, and interaction seemed capable of becoming another charge, yet I was repeatedly left asking myself: What am I actually receiving for all of this money? There is a major difference between billing a client for professional time and delivering representation that makes the client feel the attorneys are fully engaged, thoroughly prepared, strategically ahead of the opposition, and fighting for the client’s interests. I did not consistently experience that. With Brittany Forrester specifically, I was repeatedly left wanting significantly more preparation, depth, initiative, and command of my matter for the rates being charged. After nearly two years, I should not have felt that I knew the evidence, chronology, witnesses, contradictions, and key arguments substantially better than the attorneys I was paying to represent me. Yet that was routinely how I felt. The firm’s billing structure also gave me the impression of a hierarchical, pyramid-like billing system, where work and communications move through different levels of personnel while the client accumulates charges along the way. From a client’s perspective, it can become extremely expensive very quickly without a corresponding increase in the quality or effectiveness of the representation. What bothered me most was not simply that the firm was expensive. I understood that experienced legal representation costs money. My issue was value. If a firm charges premium rates, the client should receive premium preparation, knowledge of the record, strategy, responsiveness, and advocacy. I routinely felt the cost far exceeded the quality and depth of the services I received. I wanted attorneys who would immerse themselves in my case, understand it at the level I did, identify problems before I had to point them out, challenge the opposing side aggressively when supported by the record, and make me feel that someone other than me was carrying the fight. Too often, I felt like I was paying significant amounts of money while still being responsible for pushing my own case forward. Based on my personal experience, I would strongly caution prospective clients to ask detailed questions before retaining Tully Rinckey: Who will actually perform the work? What are each person’s billing rates? Will you be charged for internal communications? How many people will touch your file? How deeply will the assigned attorneys learn your evidence? What substantive work will they perform each month? And most importantly, how will the firm demonstrate that the legal value being delivered justifies the monthly bill? For me, the answer became increasingly clear: the rate and cost of service simply did not match the services I felt I received. I expected advocates. Far too often, I felt like I received billing.