Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C. - Birmingham, MI

I do not recommend James “Jay” Cunningham or Williams, Williams, Rattner & Plunkett, P.C. based on my experience in a divorce and custody matter. My experience with this representation was extremely poor. In my opinion, the preparation, communication, billing clarity, judgment-drafting, and client advocacy were far below what should be expected in a serious family law case. The problems began early. I was quoted one hourly rate during the consultation, but the written engagement terms later reflected a higher rate. I cannot say whether that was intentional or the result of poor communication, but it was my first concern about the firm’s billing and client practices. As the case progressed, I repeatedly felt that Jay was underprepared and difficult to communicate with. His explanations were often unclear, incomplete, or dismissive, which made it difficult to understand what was being done on my behalf during critical stages of the case. The final straw was Jay’s handling of my refusal to sign the proposed Judgment of Divorce. I had provided written redlines and made clear that I did not believe the draft matched the recorded mediated agreement. Instead of feeling protected, I felt pressured to move forward. Jay then communicated with opposing counsel in a way that indicated he would tell the Court the draft conformed to the recorded agreement and that he personally did not believe my signature was necessary. After I terminated him, opposing counsel used that correspondence as an exhibit against me in an attempt to move the judgment forward over my objection. At that point, I concluded the representation had become so inadequate that I was better off terminating Jay immediately, even if that meant appearing without him. After retaining new counsel, many of the same concerns I had raised were submitted again and addressed, which reinforced my belief that my concerns had merit. I also had concerns about billing and accounting, including attorney fee equalization, later invoices, and communications about balances that created unnecessary confusion and stress. I am not claiming to know whether those problems were intentional or the result of poor internal handling, but either way, they further damaged my confidence in both Jay and the firm. This review is directed at the firm as well, not only Jay. I raised my concerns with the firm’s managing partner and gave the firm an opportunity to review and address what happened. In my view, the response minimized the seriousness of the situation by treating it as a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship rather than meaningfully addressing the drafting, communication, billing, and advocacy failures I had documented. In my opinion, this representation lacked the preparation, clarity, attention to detail, and advocacy required for a complex divorce and custody matter. I would not recommend Jay or this firm to anyone facing a serious family law case.

In my opinion, Jay’s representation was extremely poor. I found him underprepared, difficult to communicate with, dismissive of serious concerns, and unwilling or unable to do the careful work required in a high-conflict family law case. Throughout the case, I repeatedly felt that I had to push him to address issues that should have been obvious, including violations, judgment-drafting problems, attorney-fee equalization, parenting-time language, property issues, and premarital retirement protections. His explanations were often incomplete, unclear, or dismissive. At critical moments, I did not feel like I had an advocate. I felt like I had someone trying to move the case along, even when the documents still contained serious problems. The final straw was his handling of the proposed Judgment of Divorce. I provided detailed written redlines and made clear that I did not believe the draft matched the recorded mediated agreement. Instead of protecting my position, Jay communicated with opposing counsel in a way that indicated he would tell the Court the draft conformed to the recorded agreement and that he personally did not believe my signature was necessary. After I fired him, opposing counsel used Jay’s correspondence as an exhibit against me in an attempt to move the judgment forward over my objection. That confirmed my concern that Jay’s handling of the case had exposed me rather than protected me. Whether he understood the consequences or not, his communication gave opposing counsel ammunition to use against his own client. I ultimately concluded that his representation had become so inadequate that I was better off terminating him immediately, even if that meant appearing without him. That is exactly what I did. After retaining new counsel, many of the same concerns I had raised were submitted again and addressed, which reinforced my belief that my concerns had merit and should have been taken seriously before I was forced into that position. I also had concerns about billing and accounting. There were issues involving attorney-fee equalization, later invoices, and balance-related communications that created unnecessary confusion and stress. I am not claiming to know whether those issues were intentional or the result of poor handling, but either way, they further damaged my confidence in the representation. In my opinion, Jay lacked the preparation, precision, communication, judgment, and advocacy required for a serious divorce and custody matter. I would not recommend him to anyone facing a family law case where careful drafting, follow-through, and protection of the client’s stated interests are critical.