Working with Hoffman & Forde -- specifically Mike Dicks -- was one of the most frustrating…read moreprofessional experiences I've ever had. My sister and I hired the firm to represent us in a construction defect case involving our home. At first, our case was assigned to a junior attorney. When that attorney left the firm, Mike Dicks took over. From that point on, the entire process became far more stressful and chaotic than it needed to be. Instead of feeling like our attorney was advocating for us, it constantly felt like we were being pressured, dismissed, or talked down to. Any time we asked questions or pushed back on changes, we were treated as if we were the problem. One of the most maddening patterns was being told that parts of the settlement agreement were "final." We were repeatedly told we could not make further changes. Then the defense would make additional changes anyway, and suddenly those changes were allowed. When we asked questions about those changes, we were told we were jeopardizing the deal. This happened over and over again and created constant confusion about what was actually finalized and what wasn't. Another major issue was the lack of attention to detail. We provided extensive documentation of the problems with our house, including photos and written descriptions. Despite that, several critical issues were not properly addressed in the settlement scope. My sister repeatedly had to review and redline documents herself just to correct errors or omissions that should have been caught by our attorney. A perfect example involves two large floor-to-ceiling windows. Multiple experts who walked through the house suspected those windows were leaking, but we did not yet have clear documentation of water intrusion. Then, right around the time we were being pushed to sign earlier versions of the settlement agreement, a storm came through. During that storm my sister was able to record water visibly running down the inside of one of the windows. Despite that evidence, those windows were still not included in the final settlement scope, even though they were clearly part of the water intrusion issues affecting the property. The office also seemed extremely disorganized. We were asked multiple times for documents we had already provided. Outdated versions of the settlement agreement were circulated and referred to as the final version. At times it genuinely felt like no one was carefully reviewing the documents being sent to us. We were also repeatedly told the defendants were essentially insolvent and that we needed to accept the settlement because there was no money to pursue. When we asked how that determination had been made, the only documentation referenced was a financial disclosure sheet completed by the defendant himself listing limited assets. We were never informed if the actual business's financial records had been reviewed. Throughout all of this, the firm's partner, Daniel Forde, was copied on many of the communications but never stepped in to address the obvious problems. To be clear, the construction work that is now being completed at the property has addressed many of the defects. In fact, the damage turned out to be so extensive that the contractors ultimately ended up doing far more work than what was originally contemplated in the settlement. But that outcome came despite the legal representation, not because of it. What should have been professional legal guidance instead turned into months of unnecessary stress, confusion, and frustration. Far too often it felt like we were the ones doing the detailed review work while also paying legal fees. If you are considering hiring Hoffman & Forde, I strongly recommend asking very direct questions about who will actually handle your case and how closely documents will be reviewed before anything is finalized. Our experience with Mike Dicks was chaotic, exhausting, and deeply disappointing.

We hired Hoffman & Forde to represent us in a construction defect case involving our home…read more Initially, we were assigned a junior attorney. After that attorney left the firm, the senior attorney on the case, Mike Dicks, took over. From that point forward, the experience deteriorated significantly. My sister and I genuinely dreaded seeing Mike's name appear in our inbox. Interactions with him were consistently stressful, confusing, and unproductive. Instead of feeling like our attorney was advocating for us, we often felt pressured, dismissed, or talked down to. One of the biggest problems was communication and consistency. Mike frequently declared things "final" instead of asking for our input. Later, the defense would make additional changes and those changes would suddenly be allowed. When we asked questions or pushed back, we were told we were jeopardizing the deal or creating problems. This happened repeatedly and made an already stressful legal process even more frustrating. Another major issue was the lack of attention to detail and organization. Despite providing extensive documentation and photos of the defects in our home, several important items were not properly addressed in the settlement scope. We repeatedly had to review and redline documents ourselves to correct errors or omissions that should have been caught by our attorney. At one point, outdated versions of the settlement agreement kept being circulated and referred to as the final version. Despite raising concerns, the version that ultimately ended up executed still reflected earlier drafts that had known issues. In addition, two large floor-to-ceiling windows that we had documented leaking with video evidence were not included in the settlement scope. Repairing those windows could cost tens of thousands of dollars out of pocket, despite being verbally agreed upon during mediation. Another troubling issue involved the claim that the defendants were essentially insolvent. When we asked how that conclusion was reached, we were told that the defense provided a financial disclosure sheet completed by the defendant himself listing a house owned by his wife. Despite the defendant owning a construction business, our attorneys did not obtain the financial records or tax returns of the business owned by the defendant. That left us with serious questions about how the insolvency conclusion was reached. The office also appeared extremely disorganized. We were asked multiple times for documents we had already provided, including basic tax information, and there were frequent email exchanges correcting mistakes or clarifying issues that should have been handled internally. What made the experience especially concerning was that the firm's partner, Daniel Forde, was copied on many of these communications but never stepped in to address the issues. To be clear, the construction work that is now being completed at our house has ultimately addressed many of the defects. In fact, because the damage to the house turned out to be more extensive than anticipated, the defendants ended up doing significantly more work than what was originally contemplated in the settlement. That is one of the few silver linings in an otherwise extremely frustrating process. However, the legal representation itself was disappointing. We expected an attorney who would carefully review documents, communicate clearly, and advocate for our interests. Instead, we often felt like we were the ones doing the detailed review work ourselves while also paying for legal services. If you are considering hiring Hoffman & Forde, I would strongly encourage you to ask detailed questions about who will actually handle your case and how closely documents and settlement terms will be reviewed before anything is finalized. Our experience with Mike Dicks was disorganized, stressful, and far below the level of professionalism we expected when hiring legal counsel.