Dropped my case because the other party was not willing to settle. This guy just wants the easy…read moremoney. He is not willing to fight for you. He dropped my case and didn't even tell me. Once I finally got a hold of him he told me I provided him multiple email addresses and he was unable to reach me. I only have one email address...

I sent a request to Marks office for an employment issue. He returned my call within the hour. Mark…read morespent about 20 minutes discussing the issue and giving advice. He's friendly and doesn't talk down to you. I will definitely use Mark when proceeding.

I can't recommend Spencer enough! He's the kind of attorney every small business owner dreams of…read morehaving. I used his services for my restaurant, and not only was he incredibly knowledgeable and professional, but he also made the entire process smooth and stress-free. Spencer explained everything in plain language, always took the time to answer my questions, and handled every detail with care. What I really appreciate is that he's honest and fair with his billing -- he won't overcharge you for work he doesn't do, which is rare to find in this field. If you need an attorney who is sharp, approachable, and truly has your best interests at heart, Spencer is the one. I'll definitely be using him again in the future!

Very appropriate everything that Adam and Spencer did for my Company, very patience and…read moreunderstanding. We need this kind of Lawyers around. The most important thing is that they believe in integrity. Thank you both for an outstanding job.

We had the pleasure of working with Paul Balestracci on a business lawsuit. It was a very…read moreemotional situation that involved the sale of our family business to someone who was refusing to pay us the monthly payments agreed upon. Paul was patient and professional through the entire ordeal. It took a few months to settle the case and he was very gracious working with all parties involved. Thank you Paul! I would refer you to anyone I know.

From the owner: Since 1903, Neumiller & Beardslee has been instrumental in shaping the San Joaquin Valley region…read more As the largest comprehensive service law firm in Stockton, Neumiller & Beardslee has a diverse, dynamic, and growing practice. The firm is a regional leader among full-service law firms, providing superior quality solution-oriented work and services while maintaining the highest standards of integrity and professionalism. Neumiller & Beardslee is dedicated to the community, representing many of the area's largest businesses and institutions and serving the needs of its individual clients. Services Offered: General litigation, Employment law, Municipal law, Business litigation, Homeowners association law, Probate and trust litigation

This law firm is quite good at first I was hesitant but honestly their service is excellent they…read moregot us in right away. They are very explicit and concise with their service pertaining the kind of help we need. They are friendly very attentive, comfortable to talk with. Well for my husband and I, if all the qualities, their values and feeling assured then it's worth a visit. So if needing some help regarding Will & Trust it's worth the call ask questions first about their service and make an appointment..

My family and I had an experience with this law firm during the administration of my aunt's…read moreCalifornia probate estate. The estate contained limited assets. According to probate filings, the executor received nearly $75,000 in compensation and reimbursements, and the attorneys received more than $16,000 in legal fees. Based on our understanding of the will, several beneficiaries did not receive property or distributions that they believed were contemplated, and no one received any amount as much as the executor for assets less than $325,000, some assets were never addressed at all ii the final accounting, where the family had to purchase the last legal filings themselves. One concern relates to notice and transparency during the administration of the estate. Following service of the Inventory and Appraisal in April 2025, additional filings were made with the court through November 2025. It is our understanding that only one beneficiary signed a Waiver of Notice of Proposed Action in April 2023, while other beneficiaries did not waive notice. Subsequent filings after April 2025, including the final accounting and distribution documents, were not served on all beneficiaries, including matters involving compensation. If accurate, this raises questions about whether all interested parties were provided notice and an opportunity to participate in the probate process. Another concern involves accounting and financial disclosure. A family member requested a complete accounting of the estate's assets, expenses, and distributions on multiple occasions, including through formal service upon the law office. According to our records, a full accounting was not provided in response to those requests. There were also concerns regarding communication. As the probate progressed, communication became more limited. Requests for information and clarification were not consistently addressed, and responses were not always provided in a timely manner. In one instance, a named heir who asked questions was informed by Terry Loa that she was not a party to the case. When Rebecca Sem was contacted directly, a similar response was received. Concerns were also raised regarding the handling of vulnerable individuals. Family members informed both the executor and the attorneys that the decedent's son had lifelong cognitive impairments and later experienced a stroke affecting his decision-making capacity. Based on our observations, no formal evaluation or action addressing these concerns was evident during the administration of the estate. Privacy issues were another area of concern. Despite notification that a granddaughter had a no-contact order involving her father, probate documents continued to include her address in filings and correspondence. Questions also arose regarding the distribution of estate property. The distribution of certain items, including antiques, jewelry, and a vehicle, differed from what some family members understood to be the intended allocations under the will. Those distributions did not align with the decedent's intent based on available information. When Atty Sems was asked directly what had happened to a great-great grandmother's rocker and other assets, the response was that the son was given the option and any remaining items were disposed of. Overall, based on our review of the probate record and our experience, there were concerns regarding communication, notice, accounting, and the administration of the estate. Probate attorneys and executors have responsibilities that include providing notice, maintaining transparency, and administering the estate in accordance with applicable law and the decedent's wishes. This review reflects my family's experience and our understanding of the probate record. Individuals considering this firm for estate administration may wish to review court filings, inquire about attorney fees and executor compensation, and seek clarification regarding notice requirements and accounting procedures. This law office failed in our opinion to follow legalities and allowed an exector, the law firm and her spouse (who had no family relations) to profit from a families traumatic event.

I've known Mr. Cooper for some time and a few car accidents. I've also referred family and friends…read moreand we have all received the highest quality of services. I consider him family. Its a bonus that he also has the Best staff. You want the Best call him up. Have a Blessed Day.

From the owner: Dean Cooper is an experienced Personal Injury Attorney in the Stockton area and he is dedicated to…read moreprotecting you from unfair and unjust insurance practices and tactics.

I cannot recommend this law office based on my experience. I have filed a complaint with the…read moreCalifornia State Bar, which remains under investigation (Case No. 23-O-23578). I am also involved in pending civil litigation, Jerome A. Clay v. Frank Delgadillo, et al., Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2023-01359983-CU-BC-WJC. During my representation, Mr. Clay stated that he carried malpractice insurance. During discovery in the litigation, my understanding is that he later stated he did not carry malpractice insurance. For that reason, I encourage anyone considering retaining this law office to independently verify whether professional liability (malpractice) insurance is currently in place. In the pending litigation, I have alleged that more than $2 million in client trust funds were improperly handled. Those allegations are disputed and remain the subject of ongoing legal proceedings and investigations. Prospective clients should conduct their own due diligence before retaining counsel.

If you're considering hiring Jerome Clay, please read this. I retained him in 2023 to represent me…read morein a civil case involving the unauthorized release of my confidential information by a government agency. As a survivor of domestic violence, I needed an attorney who would zealously protect my rights, safeguard sensitive claims, and act in my best interest. What I got instead was an attorney whose actions destroyed my legal position, betrayed my trust, and left me worse off than if I had never hired him at all. He dismissed my federal civil rights claims with prejudice--without my knowledge or consent. I never signed a CV-110 form. I was never advised in writing. I never gave oral or written authorization. I only found out months later after I became self-represented and reviewed the court docket myself. Even during my transition to self-representation--a transition that occurred because I declined a settlement offer Mr. Clay appeared to want me to accept--he gave me the impression that all of my claims were still intact. He never once disclosed that the federal claims had already been dismissed. In my opinion, this was not just a failure to communicate--it was a deliberate effort to conceal what he had done. He failed to pursue essential discovery--audit trails, metadata, and system access logs I explicitly asked him to obtain. This evidence was critical to proving my claims and identifying how my protected information had been accessed. He never even tried. Mr. Clay rarely communicates in writing--with clients or opposing counsel. In my case, almost nothing was documented. He kept communication almost entirely verbal, leaving me completely unprotected. In my view, this is intentional. It makes it nearly impossible to prove what he said or did, and ensures that if a dispute arises, it becomes a "he said/she said" situation that protects him at the client's expense. After I took over my case, he submitted a sworn declaration in support of the opposing party, falsely claiming that I had authorized the dismissal. No documentation supports this because I never gave that authorization. The court relied on his declaration to deny my Motion to Vacate, causing direct and lasting harm to my case. His conduct made it feel as though his loyalty was with the opposing party and their counsel--not me, his client. He later contacted someone I had referred to him--at a time when I still mistakenly believed he was a professional of integrity--and referenced our past legal relationship in a way that made her uncomfortable and caused her to question whether her own case was at risk. It was inappropriate, unnecessary, and showed extremely poor judgment. Conclusion: In my experience, Jerome Clay operates without transparency, avoids accountability, and fails to protect his clients. His actions caused me to lose critical claims, face delays and unnecessary litigation, and suffer emotional and strategic harm--all while making it nearly impossible to hold him accountable due to his lack of documentation. I've read Mr. Clay's responses to other critical reviews. While there are always two sides to every story, I urge potential clients to take note of how he responds--especially when the reviewer is a vulnerable or already disadvantaged client. In my view, his conduct shows a troubling pattern--not a one-time failure--and that pattern deserves scrutiny. I've submitted a formal complaint to the California State Bar. I strongly caution anyone considering hiring him to review his record, get everything in writing, and think twice before entrusting him with sensitive or high-stakes matters. In my personal opinion, Jerome Clay operates outside of ethics, absent integrity, and has no business practicing law. I've had better success as a pro se litigant with the use of AI like Legal GPT, Grok, and Perplexity.

Excellent service . Answered my questions . Called me back right away …read more Would recommend and use again

These folks spoke to me thoughtfully, knowledgeably, and patiently about a real estate issue when…read moredozens of other firms would not, after hours of calls going nowhere. Furthermore, they advised on some additional techniques to try to resolve it without litigation, for everyone's benefit. For customer service, kindness, and familiarity with the law alone, they have my vote for excellence.