Dear Greg, I wanted…read moreto thank you for the tremendous support and legal guidance provided by your firm through our Son's dis-enrollment board and subsequent appeal. From the very first phone call with you, and after several interviews with other military law firms, it was clear that you and your team were truly our best course to arrive at a positive outcome. We had the great pleasure to work with Wayne Roberts who immediately created a strong rapport with my Son and our family. His legal expertise and calming demeanor brought great confidence and reassurance as we navigated through the initial board hearing. Even though we received a favorable recommendation from board, it was not accepted by the PMS nor the Brigade. We were left with one final appeal if we chose to continue the fight to allow our son his dream of obtaining an Army Commission. Our second consultation, you presented the opportunities and hope we could successfully overturn the initial denial and arrive with a recommendation to commission. I am happy to say, I am glad we stayed with it and worked with your team. I am confident your preparation and presentation of all the facts, allowed the careful consideration and ultimate commission by the Department of Army Headquarters. Thank you again for your fairness throughout and great legal representation to arrive at this outcome.

** Tully Rinckey's response to my reviews is disingenuous. We already addressed this matter…read moredirectly with Mr Hogan. The only options presented were to continue paying TR to correct their mistakes in their work--despite them already having the necessary information and documentation--or to close the matter and receive only the unused portion of the retainer. Mr Hogan had the opportunity to resolve this privately and chose not to. ** Our experience with Partner Derrick T. Hogan was extremely disheartening. After I raised legitimate concerns regarding defective, factually inaccurate, and a legally weak demand letter produced by the firm, Mr. Hogan treated the issue as though we were simply dissatisfied with a draft. The firm already possessed the necessary information and documentation to prepare the demand letter , yet we were effectively expected to pay additional fees to correct mistakes that should have never occurred. During our phone call, Mr. Hogan repeatedly emphasized that he was a "Partner" while minimizing the substance of my concerns. He did not meaningfully address the factual errors, omissions, weak legal posture, or the firm's failure to properly handle a serious matter involving retaliation and safety issues.  This matter severely affects my 88-year-old mother and our household. We had already been dealing with a destabilizing situation for approximately a year and a half, and I expected someone serving on the Client Assurance Committee to listen carefully, investigate what had gone wrong, and help resolve the problem. Instead, the conversation felt focused on defending the firm's inaccurate work product and billing rather than understanding the deficiencies I had identified.  Mr Hogan did not provide a meaningful remedy, the options presented were essentially to continue paying for revisions or close the matter and receive only the unused portion of the retainer. This left us with an unusable draft after a substantial portion of our retainer had already been billed.  Mr. Hogan's approach was dismissive, condescending, and unhelpful. I would caution anyone seeking capable, considerate, and zealous advocacy to look elsewhere. I cannot recommend Mr Hogan or Tully Rinckey.