Receive a text message from Avvo with this lawyer's phone number and link to their profile for easier access from your mobile device.
|Award name||Grantor||Date granted|
|Member of the Year||Washington Chapter of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers||2013|
|Super Lawyer||Washington Super Lawyers||2012|
|Super Lawyer||Super Lawyers Magazine||2011|
|Super Lawyer||Super Lawyers||2010|
|2009 Family Law Lawyer of the Year||Best Lawyers||2009|
|Super Lawyer||Washington Law & Politics Magazine||2009|
|Super Lawyer||Washington Law & Politics Magazine||2008|
|Super Lawyer||Washington Law & Politics Magazine||2007|
|Super Lawyer||Washington Law & Politics Magazine||2006|
|Super Lawyer||Washington Law & Politics Magazine||2005|
|Family Law Lawyer of the Year||Washington State Bar Association||1994|
|Managing Partner||The Scott Horenstein Law Firm PLLC||1999 - Present|
|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers||Member||N/A|
|Firstenburg v. Firstenburg||N/A|
|See all legal cases|
|Writer and Editor for Washington Practice series volumes 19-21||Family and Community Property Law||2009|
|Lewis and Clark Law School||Law||Law||1977|
|University of Washington||Political Science||Bachelor of Science||1973|
|Willamette and Lewis and Clark Law Schools||Adjunct professor of community property||2012|
Posted by anonymous
I'll give Scott an A+ when it comes to winning custody of your children. One time I forgot to copy his assistant on a response to potential contempt charges, which resulted in an untimely response motion. I complained but learned it cost more money to complain because all emails and phone calls are charged to read and charged to respond, plus the complaints always lead to blaming the client. This left me with a choice of rolling over and taking it or finding a new lawyer before settlement conference. I chose to roll over but I regret that choice. I wound up having to fire Scott, hire a new lawyer and go to trial. This could have been a disaster had it not been for my new lawyers high ethical standards. It was a night and day difference.
Posted by anonymous
Scott and his team handled an acrimonious divorce for my elderly mother. Opposing counsel was a money grubbing, appalling excuse for a human being prone to incessant frivolous motions and underhanded tactics. Scott and his team stood up to this and put him in his place. The firm certainly has its way of communicating which initially seemed to be unresponsive, but they more than got the job done in the end. I have dealt with many attorneys in a variety of situations over the years and have never encountered a more professional, ethical and decent one than Scott. He is highly qualified, a tireless advocate and a very fine person. I would recommend him without reservation, Worth every cent.
Posted by anonymous
He charged $55 to respond to an email and $30 for a brief phone call. His paralegal was borderline unfriendly to talk with. Scott was not responsive in his emails. He actually neglected to notice important evidence of fraud which would have put the other party on the defense at pre-trial settlement. Two months later I had to stand next to him over his shoulder to point out where in his email inbox he could find my emails, which were sent to him 4 months prior. For an attorney who has been rated as "super lawyer" and endorsed by others, his performance was disappointing. My experience illustrates the actual value of "super lawyer" nomination---not [Fill in the blank]. When the actual trial came around, he looked like a student who had not been studying the whole semester now tried to cram everything in. That was what the scene looked like. When the other party refused to produce documents, he never worked hard to compel the production of those documents. Follow-up was also poor. I had to remind him. The court declarations written by the paralegal seemed to be generated by minimal works. However, the dollars charged is top notched in this area. I would not recommend him based on my experience. However, your mileage may vary.
The review written here follows the guideline "Explain what your lawyer did (or failed to do) with your case. We will only accept reviews that clearly indicate they were written by an actual client...but not too specific...." It is unfortunate that some reviewers here appeared to have written comments about speculations and judgements about other clients' personal attributes and their experience with this attorney, both of which they knew nothing. I would like to respectfully reiterate that reviewers need to follow the guideline as this is not an area for creative writing. Readers are interested in reading about attorney-specific review and not one's speculation or imagination about other clients and their cases.