Tadd did an amazing job with my divorce. He was nearly always available when I called, though I tried not to call more than necessary. he was pricey, but worth every penny and very fair in his billing. Todd is ethical and encourages parties to settle amicably, but will be there when you need him for "battle."

I hired Franks to recover quite a bit of property that someone else--let's call him T--was holding and refused to return. The most important stuff T had were my career documents--resumes, letters of recommendation, etc.--all the materials I needed to restart my career after some personal problems. Franks has a reputation as a ferocious bulldog of a divorce lawyer, and in our opening discussion, he analyzed the situation very quickly and came up with an excellent strategy. I was thrilled. Then nothing happened. I called: the staff said, "Mr. Franks is not available." Prospective employers were becoming interested in me, but what could I do with no recommendations, no transcripts, no credentials? I kept calling. "Sorry, Mr. Franks is unavailable." Finally, I said I would go to the Arizona Bar Ethics Board unless I got some response, some action, something--out of this guy. Guess what? He took my call. It turned out he had been out of the office for ten days visiting a sick friend. Okay, fine, but why did no one tell me *why* Franks had been unavailable? I would have understood. Franks yelled at me about how how insensitive I had been. Okay, fine. I was insensitive. So then I waited for him to get to my case. Then the doing-nothing started again. Days passed. More days. Prospective employers were giving jobs to other people who had their documents. More days. "Mr. Franks is unavailable." Usually that means, "The lawyer doesn't want to talk to you now." I got that line for another week. Finally, by some miracle, a staffer said, "Well, Mr. Franks will deal with your case right away after he gets back from vacation." Vacation? He had not said anything about this. No staffer had informed me. I just assumed he was ducking my calls. In all, THREE weeks passed (and who knows how many jobs) while Franks pulled his mystery disappearing acts. It would have been one thing had a secretary said, "Mr. Franks is visiting a sick friend, and I expect him in the office on the tenth. Why don't you call then?" But I just kept getting the broken record about his being unavailable. The same with the vacation. Nobody told me anything, and I assumed, rationally, that he was, again, delaying dealing with my case. I've worked with a lot of lawyers, and am trained as a lawyer myself, though I now work in a different field. I understand that lawyers often do nothing for quite a long time, then solve everything in one two-hour phone call with the lawyer for the other side. Franks's multiple absences from work would have been fine if I had been told where he was and when I could expect him back. Instead, I just watched job after job fly by me with not a clue about where he was. This behavior is unethical. No wonder the lawyer I got to replace him called him a "s****ball." It's really too bad. I think he would have been very effective. But you just can't keep clients in the dark like that. A lawyer who behaves that way, even once, to even one client, makes him inherently untrustworthy. I don't care about his wonderful reputation for effectiveness. Franks was totally ineffective for me, because he just *wasn't there* for three weeks straight. If you have clairvoyance or ESP, maybe he might be a good lawyer for you.

Tadd did an amazing job with my divorce. He was nearly always available when I called, though I tried not to call more than necessary. he was pricey, but worth every penny and very fair in his billing. Todd is ethical and encourages parties to settle amicably, but will be there when you need him for "battle."

I hired Franks to recover quite a bit of property that someone else--let's call him T--was holding and refused to return. The most important stuff T had were my career documents--resumes, letters of recommendation, etc.--all the materials I needed to restart my career after some personal problems. Franks has a reputation as a ferocious bulldog of a divorce lawyer, and in our opening discussion, he analyzed the situation very quickly and came up with an excellent strategy. I was thrilled. Then nothing happened. I called: the staff said, "Mr. Franks is not available." Prospective employers were becoming interested in me, but what could I do with no recommendations, no transcripts, no credentials? I kept calling. "Sorry, Mr. Franks is unavailable." Finally, I said I would go to the Arizona Bar Ethics Board unless I got some response, some action, something--out of this guy. Guess what? He took my call. It turned out he had been out of the office for ten days visiting a sick friend. Okay, fine, but why did no one tell me *why* Franks had been unavailable? I would have understood. Franks yelled at me about how how insensitive I had been. Okay, fine. I was insensitive. So then I waited for him to get to my case. Then the doing-nothing started again. Days passed. More days. Prospective employers were giving jobs to other people who had their documents. More days. "Mr. Franks is unavailable." Usually that means, "The lawyer doesn't want to talk to you now." I got that line for another week. Finally, by some miracle, a staffer said, "Well, Mr. Franks will deal with your case right away after he gets back from vacation." Vacation? He had not said anything about this. No staffer had informed me. I just assumed he was ducking my calls. In all, THREE weeks passed (and who knows how many jobs) while Franks pulled his mystery disappearing acts. It would have been one thing had a secretary said, "Mr. Franks is visiting a sick friend, and I expect him in the office on the tenth. Why don't you call then?" But I just kept getting the broken record about his being unavailable. The same with the vacation. Nobody told me anything, and I assumed, rationally, that he was, again, delaying dealing with my case. I've worked with a lot of lawyers, and am trained as a lawyer myself, though I now work in a different field. I understand that lawyers often do nothing for quite a long time, then solve everything in one two-hour phone call with the lawyer for the other side. Franks's multiple absences from work would have been fine if I had been told where he was and when I could expect him back. Instead, I just watched job after job fly by me with not a clue about where he was. This behavior is unethical. No wonder the lawyer I got to replace him called him a "s****ball." It's really too bad. I think he would have been very effective. But you just can't keep clients in the dark like that. A lawyer who behaves that way, even once, to even one client, makes him inherently untrustworthy. I don't care about his wonderful reputation for effectiveness. Franks was totally ineffective for me, because he just *wasn't there* for three weeks straight. If you have clairvoyance or ESP, maybe he might be a good lawyer for you.

Tadd did an amazing job with my divorce. He was nearly always available when I called, though I tried not to call more than necessary. he was pricey, but worth every penny and very fair in his billing. Todd is ethical and encourages parties to settle amicably, but will be there when you need him for "battle."

I hired Franks to recover quite a bit of property that someone else--let's call him T--was holding and refused to return. The most important stuff T had were my career documents--resumes, letters of recommendation, etc.--all the materials I needed to restart my career after some personal problems. Franks has a reputation as a ferocious bulldog of a divorce lawyer, and in our opening discussion, he analyzed the situation very quickly and came up with an excellent strategy. I was thrilled. Then nothing happened. I called: the staff said, "Mr. Franks is not available." Prospective employers were becoming interested in me, but what could I do with no recommendations, no transcripts, no credentials? I kept calling. "Sorry, Mr. Franks is unavailable." Finally, I said I would go to the Arizona Bar Ethics Board unless I got some response, some action, something--out of this guy. Guess what? He took my call. It turned out he had been out of the office for ten days visiting a sick friend. Okay, fine, but why did no one tell me *why* Franks had been unavailable? I would have understood. Franks yelled at me about how how insensitive I had been. Okay, fine. I was insensitive. So then I waited for him to get to my case. Then the doing-nothing started again. Days passed. More days. Prospective employers were giving jobs to other people who had their documents. More days. "Mr. Franks is unavailable." Usually that means, "The lawyer doesn't want to talk to you now." I got that line for another week. Finally, by some miracle, a staffer said, "Well, Mr. Franks will deal with your case right away after he gets back from vacation." Vacation? He had not said anything about this. No staffer had informed me. I just assumed he was ducking my calls. In all, THREE weeks passed (and who knows how many jobs) while Franks pulled his mystery disappearing acts. It would have been one thing had a secretary said, "Mr. Franks is visiting a sick friend, and I expect him in the office on the tenth. Why don't you call then?" But I just kept getting the broken record about his being unavailable. The same with the vacation. Nobody told me anything, and I assumed, rationally, that he was, again, delaying dealing with my case. I've worked with a lot of lawyers, and am trained as a lawyer myself, though I now work in a different field. I understand that lawyers often do nothing for quite a long time, then solve everything in one two-hour phone call with the lawyer for the other side. Franks's multiple absences from work would have been fine if I had been told where he was and when I could expect him back. Instead, I just watched job after job fly by me with not a clue about where he was. This behavior is unethical. No wonder the lawyer I got to replace him called him a "s****ball." It's really too bad. I think he would have been very effective. But you just can't keep clients in the dark like that. A lawyer who behaves that way, even once, to even one client, makes him inherently untrustworthy. I don't care about his wonderful reputation for effectiveness. Franks was totally ineffective for me, because he just *wasn't there* for three weeks straight. If you have clairvoyance or ESP, maybe he might be a good lawyer for you.

Tadd did an amazing job with my divorce. He was nearly always available when I called, though I tried not to call more than necessary. he was pricey, but worth every penny and very fair in his billing. Todd is ethical and encourages parties to settle amicably, but will be there when you need him for "battle."

I hired Franks to recover quite a bit of property that someone else--let's call him T--was holding and refused to return. The most important stuff T had were my career documents--resumes, letters of recommendation, etc.--all the materials I needed to restart my career after some personal problems. Franks has a reputation as a ferocious bulldog of a divorce lawyer, and in our opening discussion, he analyzed the situation very quickly and came up with an excellent strategy. I was thrilled. Then nothing happened. I called: the staff said, "Mr. Franks is not available." Prospective employers were becoming interested in me, but what could I do with no recommendations, no transcripts, no credentials? I kept calling. "Sorry, Mr. Franks is unavailable." Finally, I said I would go to the Arizona Bar Ethics Board unless I got some response, some action, something--out of this guy. Guess what? He took my call. It turned out he had been out of the office for ten days visiting a sick friend. Okay, fine, but why did no one tell me *why* Franks had been unavailable? I would have understood. Franks yelled at me about how how insensitive I had been. Okay, fine. I was insensitive. So then I waited for him to get to my case. Then the doing-nothing started again. Days passed. More days. Prospective employers were giving jobs to other people who had their documents. More days. "Mr. Franks is unavailable." Usually that means, "The lawyer doesn't want to talk to you now." I got that line for another week. Finally, by some miracle, a staffer said, "Well, Mr. Franks will deal with your case right away after he gets back from vacation." Vacation? He had not said anything about this. No staffer had informed me. I just assumed he was ducking my calls. In all, THREE weeks passed (and who knows how many jobs) while Franks pulled his mystery disappearing acts. It would have been one thing had a secretary said, "Mr. Franks is visiting a sick friend, and I expect him in the office on the tenth. Why don't you call then?" But I just kept getting the broken record about his being unavailable. The same with the vacation. Nobody told me anything, and I assumed, rationally, that he was, again, delaying dealing with my case. I've worked with a lot of lawyers, and am trained as a lawyer myself, though I now work in a different field. I understand that lawyers often do nothing for quite a long time, then solve everything in one two-hour phone call with the lawyer for the other side. Franks's multiple absences from work would have been fine if I had been told where he was and when I could expect him back. Instead, I just watched job after job fly by me with not a clue about where he was. This behavior is unethical. No wonder the lawyer I got to replace him called him a "s****ball." It's really too bad. I think he would have been very effective. But you just can't keep clients in the dark like that. A lawyer who behaves that way, even once, to even one client, makes him inherently untrustworthy. I don't care about his wonderful reputation for effectiveness. Franks was totally ineffective for me, because he just *wasn't there* for three weeks straight. If you have clairvoyance or ESP, maybe he might be a good lawyer for you.