Sodoma Law advertises itself as a firm that provides strategic guidance, strong advocacy, and exceptional communication in complex family‑law matters. After years of representation and substantial fees, my experience did not match what they promote.
I retained Sodoma Law for an interstate child‑support matter. My case proceeded all the way through a trial, where it was confirmed that my child support should increase from $98 a month to $865 a month, along with arrears. After years of litigation, preparation, and expense, this outcome should have been the resolution of my case. Instead, the most serious failure occurred afterward: my child‑support modification was ultimately **dismissed for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction**.
Because the matter involved UIFSA and an out‑of‑state order, a proper jurisdictional analysis should have been done at the very beginning--long before trial, long before years of litigation, and long before tens of thousands of dollars were spent. Instead, I pursued a modification North Carolina could not legally decide.
At no point during those years did anyone at the firm communicate that jurisdiction was uncertain, that the modification might not stick, or that there was any risk the court lacked authority to decide the case. There was no warning, no strategic discussion, and no indication that the entire effort could collapse. I only learned of the jurisdictional problem when the court dismissed the motion outright.
This was especially devastating because the trial outcome had already established a significantly higher support amount and arrears. None of that could be finalized because the jurisdictional foundation was never properly addressed.
Sodoma Law also promotes strong communication and client support, but my experience was the opposite. Shortly before important proceedings, the firm moved to withdraw and stated in their own motion that I should not expect a continuance despite being left without counsel. They will leave you high and dry without any concern.
I also discovered that my client file was incomplete. Only after I questioned it did the firm acknowledge that documents had been "inadvertently not copied over" and then added additional materials. For a firm that advertises meticulous case management, this was troubling.
Most concerning of all, when I raised fee‑related disputes connected to the jurisdictional error, *he firm simply stopped responding. Navigating the consequences of their mistake became a long, difficult, and unnecessarily burdensome process--one I had to manage alone, despite the substantial fees I had already paid. For a firm that markets itself as client‑focused and communicative, refusing to address fee disputes tied directly to their own error was deeply disappointing.
If you are considering Sodoma Law, I strongly recommend not to. read more
