Thomas Law Firm - Austin, TX

DO NOT TRUST THIS ATTORNEY OR FIRM TO REPRESENT YOU. I hired Griffith “Hunter” Thomas II in 2021, trusting him as the managing attorney and namesake of Thomas Law Firm. I paid a $5,000 retainer in good faith and was left with a stalled case, procedural failures, and no resolution after more than three years. I am now in the process of filing formal complaints with both the State Bar of Texas and the Better Business Bureau. ⸻ 1. Repeated Failure to Serve Opposing Counsel. Despite multiple assurances that key motions had been filed — including one to dismiss the case and another to recover my $6,200 bond — they were never served on the opposing party, rendering them procedurally useless. “Our firm was not served with the motion to request the return of cash deposit nor with appellant’s motion to withdraw appeal… The motions were not ‘unopposed’ but were simply unreceived by us.” — Opposing counsel, April 2025 This wasn’t an isolated mistake. I have similar evidence from 2022 confirming the same issue. This shows a pattern of negligence, not just a one-time oversight. ⸻ 2. Contradictory Claims About Firm Identity and Evasion of Responsibility. In 2025, Mr. Thomas attempted to distance himself from responsibility by claiming that a “previous firm” had represented me — despite the fact that the firm still operates under his name, from the same location, using the same phone number and email address that have been active since 2021. He wrote: “As you both should know, my previous firm represented you in the subject-titled cause. I was listed as an attorney on the case, though I should not have been. I did provide minimal advice to your lead attorney on a certain question, and I was the managing attorney of that firm at the time. Since then, our new firm wanted to help finalize the case, however, and though I would like to help y’all, I must withdraw due to a conflict of interest.” — Griffith “Hunter” Thomas II, 2025 No formal substitution of counsel or withdrawal was ever filed. The attempt to rebrand or relabel the same legal entity appears to be a blatant misrepresentation, designed to sidestep professional responsibility without changing any actual operations. ⸻ 3. $5,000 Retainer Depleted Without Results. Despite repeated commitments to advance the case, no hearing was set and no motion was ever ruled on. Instead, my entire retainer was depleted — not on progress, but on: • Internal file reviews by junior attorneys • Repeated responses to my update requests • Reworking tasks that should’ve been completed long ago At no point did my case move meaningfully forward. Their inaction left me right where I started — only with thousands of dollars gone. ⸻ 4. Poor Supervision of Inexperienced Staff. My case was eventually handed off to a first-year associate who had recently joined the firm. He appeared at a key hearing (a Temporary Restraining Order) and said nothing. He was left to manage filings and deadlines with little to no oversight — resulting in additional errors and delays that undermined my position. ⸻ I was ultimately forced to represent myself. After years of missed deadlines, broken promises, and misleading communication, I was told I would need to pay even more to continue — despite the fact that my original $5,000 retainer should have been more than sufficient for this matter. At that point, I had no choice but to represent myself. Mr. Thomas’s actions violated my trust and appear to violate multiple provisions of the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. ⸻ Avoid this attorney. Don’t be fooled by polished branding, vague excuses, or shifting stories. What I experienced was negligence, misrepresentation, and costly deflection — while my case stalled and my retainer disappeared.