Chris
Don’t get involved
I instructed this firm in relation to a motoring matter on a standby basis. While work was carried out and staff were generally polite, my overall experience was disappointing due to poor communication and lack of proactive case management. In particular, I was not asked when I was due to return to the police station, which resulted in advice being given only hours before a critical police interview — something I had to notify the firm about myself. This left me feeling underprepared and unsupported at a key stage. Communication around court attendance times was also confusing and caused unnecessary stress. Although the firm maintains that all work was completed in line with their package, I do not feel the level of reassurance, clarity, or proactive guidance I received justified the fees charged. Concerns raised were ultimately dismissed rather than meaningfully addressed. This may suit clients who are very confident managing matters themselves, but if you are looking for clear, proactive communication and close case management, I would advise caution.
Jeanette Sarah Miller
This review contains information that we believe is not a true reflection of the matter. We are disappointed to read your comments, which do not accurately reflect the work completed on your behalf or the findings of our comprehensive internal review following your complaint. Due to our duty of confidentiality, we are limited in providing case specific details that were included in our response to your complaint, publicly. What we can say firmly is that all communication, advice, and preparation provided were entirely consistent with the scope of the package you selected and with the information available to us at each stage. As explained in the detailed written response you have already received, the chronology of events, the advice given, and the actions taken by our team have been fully documented and verified. Your suggestion that you were left without guidance before key stages is incorrect. Where time critical events such as police interviews or court hearings are concerned, the timing is controlled solely by third party agencies. For example, if the police choose to notify a client of an interview directly and with little notice, or if a court unilaterally changes a listing time without informing the legal representative, these are matters entirely outside our control. In these situations, we always advise our clients promptly once we are made aware and this occurred in your case. You also assert that you were given incorrect court information. Our enquiry established that the court time provided to you was the time confirmed to us during our checks. If the court subsequently amended the listing without notifying us, responsibility for that change lies squarely with the court, not with the legal representative who has already confirmed the correct information. Your review omits reference to the significant work undertaken on your behalf, the advice given at each stage, and the multiple attempts made to contact you. It also overlooks the fact that some of the difficulties you describe resulted from external agencies’ actions, not from any failing on our part. As set out in our written response, we did not uphold your complaint or your request for reimbursement, as no shortcomings in our service were identified. The standard of care you received was consistent with what we expect from our team and from the package instructed. We remain committed to high professional standards and take full responsibility where service genuinely falls below those standards. In this instance, however, our investigation found no evidence of any such failure. The Geoffrey Miller Team
