I would not recommend Jackson Law Firm based on my experience with the firm during my divorce.
I ultimately terminated the firm's representation because I had lost confidence in the representation I was receiving from Thomas Just. Thomas was repeatedly not adequately prepared regarding my case, was late with deadlines, late for scheduled calls, and on occasions failed to appear for scheduled calls without calling or notifying me. Communication and follow-through became a continuing problem, and I reached the point where I no longer had confidence in the representation I was receiving.
After terminating the firm, I reviewed the billing and the case file in detail. I had paid Jackson Law Firm approximately $8,500, and I disputed a substantial portion of those fees based upon the work performed and the actual progress made in my case.
One of my biggest concerns was the difference between what I was being billed for and what I actually received when my case file was turned over.
There were multiple billing entries associated with mediation preparation, case preparation, document review, and related work. Yet when I received my case file after terminating the representation, there were no meaningful mediation-preparation materials in the file corresponding to those charges. The file was largely comprised of documents and information that I had provided to the firm myself, rather than substantive attorney work product demonstrating the preparation for which I had been billed.
This was particularly troubling because mediation preparation was not billed as a single isolated event. There were multiple entries associated with preparing the case and preparing for mediation, yet the case file returned to me did not contain the substantive mediation-preparation work product those charges would suggest had been performed.
I also identified billing entries associated with drafting and editing a Rule 11 agreement after it had already been submitted to the court, as well as more than four hours billed for communications with opposing counsel. The case file provided to me did not contain documentation demonstrating what was accomplished during those billed communications that justified more than four hours of attorney time.
This was not simply a matter of being unhappy with an invoice. I prepared a detailed fee-dispute packet containing the invoices, payment records, correspondence, case-file materials, timeline, and the specific charges I questioned.
I first attempted to resolve the dispute privately. When that was unsuccessful, I attempted to use the Austin Bar Association Attorney Fee Dispute Program so that the billing could be reviewed through a neutral process.
Participation in that process is voluntary. In my case, the firm did not agree to participate, so the disputed fees were never independently reviewed through that process.
I then went directly to the firm's principal, Justin Jackson. I provided my documentation and gave the firm another opportunity to address the matter. Justin initially responded that he was discussing it with Thomas.
I followed up again and specifically offered to resolve the disagreement through the Austin Bar Association fee-dispute process if the firm believed its charges were justified. After receiving no substantive response, I followed up once more and gave the firm a specific deadline to tell me whether it intended to resolve the dispute, participate in the neutral fee-dispute process, or decline both.
That deadline passed without a response.
That is why this review is about Jackson Law Firm, not simply Thomas Just.
I hired and paid Jackson Law Firm. I terminated the representation after losing confidence in the service I was receiving. I then reviewed the firm's invoices against the actual case file that was returned to me and found significant discrepancies between the preparation being billed and the work product contained in that file.
I attempted to resolve those concerns privately, offered a neutral fee-review process, and ultimately brought the matter directly to firm leadership.
The problems went beyond one attorney: inadequate preparation, missed or late commitments, billing concerns, poor communication, a case file containing little substantive attorney work product compared with the preparation charges billed, unwillingness to participate in a voluntary neutral fee-review process, and ultimately a lack of substantive response from firm leadership.
If you are considering Jackson Law Firm, I strongly recommend monitoring your case progress and invoices closely. Keep your own copies of everything you provide to the firm, document scheduled calls and deadlines, and ask to see the actual work product associated with significant preparation charges.
Based on my experience, I would not hire Jackson Law Firm again, and I would not recommend this firm to anyone seeking legal representation. read more
