1-Star Review for Snell Law Firm
As someone experiencing civil litigation for the first time, I faced the difficult task of choosing legal representation with limited information. From the perspective of a non-lawyer, the structural imbalance in the attorney-client relationship became immediately clear--I lacked both the expertise and leverage to meaningfully assess or question the guidance I was receiving.
I'm not sharing this to express resentment, but to offer my personal account in the hope that it may help others in similar situations make more informed decisions.
My experience with Snell Law raised several concerns:
1. Strategic Oversight
My counterclaims, which I raised as a shareholder on behalf of the company, should have been filed as a derivative action. Instead, they were submitted as a standard civil claim. This led to early procedural objections from the opposing party and even a motion to dismiss, which risked derailing the case before the substance could be addressed.
After seeking second opinions from two independent firms, I came to believe the original filing format was not appropriate. I ended up switching counsel and revising the pleadings--incurring both delay and considerable cost.
2. Passive Approach and Strategic Uncertainty
Given ongoing concerns about potential irregularities in financial records, I had hoped for quicker action regarding document discovery and production. Before key financial documents were obtained, I was advised to hire a forensic accountant and begin valuation procedures. At the time, I wondered whether that step might have been premature, especially considering the cost involved.
I was also informed by email that the opposing party was being "cooperative" in producing records. However, several of my document requests remained unanswered, which led me to question whether the guidance I was receiving was fully aligned with the actual situation.
3. Billing Structure That Was Sometimes Unclear
From my perspective as a client unfamiliar with law firm billing practices, there were times when the invoices felt hard to interpret--especially when more than one professional appeared to be billing time for the same task, such as reviewing an email I sent.
In some cases, internal discussions seemed to result from relatively simple client communications, and I didn't always understand how responsibilities were divided.
Because progress in the case was limited during certain periods, I personally found it difficult to evaluate the value of the time billed in relation to outcomes at those stages.
4. Communication That Sometimes Felt Disconnected
During the engagement, there were times when I had to follow up more than once for updates or decisions, and I sometimes found myself trying to prompt strategic direction. Some email responses were delayed, and a few of my inquiries did not receive replies.
After I sent a formal termination notice, I received a long message from the lead attorney--along with a lunch invitation and an offer to "clarify things." While I appreciated the gesture, by that time, I felt the opportunity to rebuild trust had already passed.
5. Delay in Trust Account Refund
Although the final invoice was issued on April 1 and our engagement ended on March 21, the remaining balance in the IOLTA trust account wasn't refunded until nearly three weeks later. It took follow-up from my side to get the refund processed.
In my view, this final administrative step should have been handled more efficiently and professionally.
Again, I share this review not to attack anyone, but to offer transparency from a client's perspective. Every legal case is unique, and I recognize that other clients may have had different experiences. But for anyone facing complex disputes and relying on legal counsel, I strongly encourage asking detailed questions and exploring multiple perspectives before making a decision.
I sincerely hope this helps someone avoid the challenges I went through. read more
