Lawyers map
Reviews
Top review highlights
Pros
1
Personalized and compassionate service - Reviewers consistently praise the firm for treating them like family and going above and beyond to support them throughout the legal process
“Curry and Rose made us feel as if our case, was the only case they had. The level of personalized service was more than we anticipated; they took our case personal and their actions proved it.”
2
Expertise and success in securing favorable outcomes - Clients highlight the firm's strong legal expertise and ability to achieve positive results, often exceeding their expectations
“I had a wonderful experience with Pajcic & Pajcic. Tom Slater and Sandy Reddish were absolutely amazing! They informed me from day one that they would take care of me and I must say, they did just that and some.”
3
Responsive and transparent communication - Reviewers appreciate the firm's commitment to keeping them informed and promptly addressing their questions and concerns
“Sabrina answered my every question and quickly responded to every email, usually within minutes after I sent them.”
4
Caring and supportive staff - Clients praise the professionalism and empathy of the firm's staff, including attorneys, paralegals, and case managers
“Brenda Postell was my case manager and she put the 'human touch' on what essentially is just a cold business deal for the insurance company. I really felt like she gave it to me straight and was genuinely concerned with making sure that all my questions were answered.”
5
Reputation and community involvement - The firm's strong reputation and commitment to giving back to the local community are noted as additional positive factors
“Besides being an excellent personal injury firm with an outstanding reputation, the attorneys are so generous and giving in our community.”
Cons
1
Dissatisfaction with handling of a case
“I regret to say that I had a terrible experience with this Law Firm. The Lawyer I was assigned to, Tom Slater, made a lot of promises that were never delivered on, including his 'commitment to my case'.”
2
Lack of responsiveness and transparency
“The supporting staff was incompetent and failed to provide information on a consistent basis, and when they did provide information, it was often incorrect. The Lawyers and supporting Staff avoided phone calls and would not call me back when we had appointed meetings.”
