I am writing this review to provide a factual account of my experience with Knowles Law Firm and attorney Gary Nielsen, who unilaterally withdrew from my defense after collecting my final payment.
Prospective clients should consider the following timeline of my representation:
Courtroom Failure to Appear: I was explicitly instructed by the firm that my attendance at a mandatory court hearing was unnecessary. Upon checking with the judicial assistant, I learned my counsel's presence was mandatory. When contacted, the firm stated Mr. Nielsen was in another hearing and could not attend. It required the Judge's direct personal intervention to get him to head toward the courthouse.
Questionable Financial Timing: Immediately after collecting my final payment to reach a total of $4,500, Mr. Nielsen unilaterally withdrew from my case. During our final meeting, he stated he "should have withdrawn 3 or 4 months ago." Waiting to abandon a client until the exact moment maximum fees are extracted reflects a massive breach of fiduciary priority.
Inconsistent Advocacy & Admin Errors: Legal advice shifted constantly, and administrative tasks were neglected. The firm failed to submit mandatory fingerprints to the court as required. Furthermore, client portal logs showed systematic placeholders indicating discovery files were received months before they were actually ordered or accessible to me.
Severe Communication Breakdown: Emails went systematically ignored, forcing me to routinely copy the managing partner just to secure a basic response.Despite failing to see my case through to resolution and admitting he wanted out months ago while continuing to take my money, management has flatly refused to issue a refund.
If you want a proactive defense team that communicates transparently and shows up to represent you, look elsewhere.
Public Response
I have already contacted your firm multiple times explicitly requesting a resolution and a refund, and your firm flatly stated there is nothing more you can do for me. Offering a phone number publicly to look cooperative while privately refusing to remedy the situation is entirely contradictory.
For the public record, this dispute is not a vague misunderstanding; it is a documented failure to adhere to the core tenets of the State Bar Ethical Rules (ER):
ER 1.1 (Competence) & ER 1.3 (Diligence): Your firm failed to submit mandatory fingerprints to the court and completely failed to appear at my mandatory court hearing, requiring the Judge's direct, personal intervention to compel your attendance. Your firm failed to review evidence that I provided suggests a failure of preparation and thoroughness. Your firm consistently flip-flopped, failing to defend me.
ER 1.4 (Communication): Messages and critical strategy questions were systematically ignored for weeks, forcing me to routinely copy the managing partner just to secure a basic response. Your firm on several occasions denied previous statements, flip-flopping.
ER 1.5 (Attorney Fees) & ER 1.15 (Safekeeping Property/Accounting): Your firm extracted a total of $4,500--including a final $2,000 payment--only to abandon the case immediately after receiving the funds. Your case management system also used automated placeholders falsely showing discovery was received months before it was actually ordered.
ER 1.7 / ER 1.8 (Duty of Loyalty and Conflict of Interest): Your firm prioritized your relationship with the prosecutor over my defense.
ER 1.16 (Terminating Representation) & ER 8.4 (Misconduct): Counsel unilaterally withdrew from my defense right after securing full payment, explicitly admitting in our final meeting, 'I should have withdrawn from your case 3 or 4 months ago. 'You have my email history and my formal written demands on file.
If your firm is genuinely committed to the 'high standard' you claim online, you can issue the full refund for the scope of work you failed to complete, rather than directing me to a phone line where I have already been denied a remedy. read more
