Wells, Jaworski, Liebman & Paton, LLP - Paramus, NJ

I engaged the firm Wells, Jaworski & Liebman for an estate litigation case in which I am a beneficiary. My time with the firm spanned approximately 15 months, and unfortunately, the experience was highly unsatisfactory. The primary issue was the lack of continuity in my legal representation. I was assigned three different attorneys during this relatively short period. This constant turnover created a significant burden on me, the client, as I was repeatedly required to get each new attorney "up to speed" on the complex details of my case, which was both time-consuming and frustrating. Also, one of the attorneys with whom I thought I was working left the firm. When I questioned where my attorney was, this is the response that I received: Not sure on the invoice you just rec’d, but I can tell you that we would almost never send a note to advise that a lawyer has left our firm. Just not protocol." That response that I received from one of the partners was ridiculous. This statement from the partner is incorrect; failing to notify affected clients when a primary attorney leaves the firm is generally a violation of legal ethics rules. Both the departing lawyer and the firm have a joint ethical obligation to ensure that clients for whom the lawyer played a principal role are promptly notified of the departure. Furthermore, this high turnover was coupled with persistent "billing nightmares." The frequent personnel changes seemed to correlate with disorganization in the billing process, leading to a lack of clarity and ongoing issues with invoices. The lack of consistent, dedicated representation and the administrative problems with billing severely hindered the progress of my case and added unnecessary stress to an already difficult situation. I believe potential clients should be aware of the high staff turnover and the potential for billing issues at this firm.