Law Partners personal injury firm: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I been a client of Law Partners personal injury firm from 2018-04 till 2020-06. After | I been a client of Law Partners personal injury firm from 2018-04 till 2020-06. After the injury itself this is the second thing, I wish that would not happen in my life. For me dealing with Law Partners was truly retraumatizing experience. It started path of the misery that I still cannot get out of | ||
I was represented by solicitor Gillian Potts and barrister Ken Pryde, who technically is not a part a part of Law Partners, but according to himself works with them a lot. | I was represented by solicitor Gillian Potts and barrister Ken Pryde, who technically is not a part a part of Law Partners, but according to himself works with them a lot. |
Revision as of 09:51, 12 December 2023
I been a client of Law Partners personal injury firm from 2018-04 till 2020-06. After the injury itself this is the second thing, I wish that would not happen in my life. For me dealing with Law Partners was truly retraumatizing experience. It started path of the misery that I still cannot get out of
I was represented by solicitor Gillian Potts and barrister Ken Pryde, who technically is not a part a part of Law Partners, but according to himself works with them a lot.
The list of problems is very long. I have 2 complaints against them with Office of the NSW Legal Services Commissioner.
Law Partners bill
- Charge for all phone calls and emails twice: as part of other items and additionally individually just calls or correspondence, even if by the contract they were already covered by other items and should not be charged additionally (items: 1, 2, 3, 5).
- Charge for the tasks they have not performed, but simply asked the client to provide final information (item 4).
- I had a look at 34 general communication items: 7 have no correspondence, 6 were just notifications of appointments, for notification of one appointment with Dr Khan they charge 4 times. None of them should have been charged based on the contract.
- They made 2 mathematical errors and charge extra $3,210.01.
Analysis of Law Partners itemized bill (incomplete)