Reviews

Ruth Borland was referred to me by a trustworthy source. She is gracious, well-educated, and seems concerned about one's situation. She has been in business a long time and her firm has a good rep. Most of my contact was by phone; she was available for our appointments. She worked with me on our financial arrangement due to the length of my case. Her admin assistant is very helpful and on the ball. That being said, when it comes to managing a client's expectations and getting things done in a timely, assertive manner, my review takes a turn. I hired Ms. Borland in Spring 2010 to help me with a challenging estate issue: a family Irrevocable Trust was being mismanaged by the two Trustees (a bank and a family member who was also a beneficiary of said trust). As the only other surviving beneficiary, I was being prevented from accessing funds in my trust account via some questionable practices. Ruth told me I had a very strong case that we could take to trial. When I asked how long this would all take, she could not give me a general timeframe. I hired her on faith, assuming that a few years (2) would be plenty to get this process underway, to court and resolved in my favor. After 2+ years passed I started relaying to Atty. Borland my frustration and angst about getting this case to trial and resolved while it had "steam". She always left it up to me whether to continue on or not. In spite of an emotionally charged situation involving the other family member/trustee/beneificary, I pressed on. Fast forward 5+ years: After filing the lawsuit in late 2011, court dates, continuances of court dates for one reason or another, periods of time when nothing seemed to be happening, several unproductive attempts at settlement conducted by Atty. Borland and opposing counsel, I said "enough" and settled Dec 2015 for a unimpressive sum by signing away my rights as beneficiary of the Trust. Not a very favorable outcome, given how the trust was written and intended. When I told Ruth how disappointed I was that it had come to this, she defended herself by saying I did not let her take it to trial. After all that had transpired, time and resources spent, I had lost faith that the case would ever get to court. "Under promise and over deliver, not the other way around."

I retained Ruth for a temporary PFA and custody order that I was served with in August 2012. In November 2013 Ruth suggested we file a motion for a change of venue. She got it prepared, and waited another eight months before filing it. Ruth was unable to attend this hearing, and instead sent an associate. He had little to say as we were offered to have the case moved across the street. I was under the impression that we wanted the change of venue in order to move it out of the county where my wife, her attorney, and her law partner are all guardian ad litem attorneys. What really bothered me was when neither counsel thought to object to Judge Corbett's decision to have this hearing without the stenographer. Finally, December 2014, a hearing is set for the PFA. For the past 15 months Ruth never contacted any of my witnesses. Just three days before the hearing, Ruth could not reach the only witness she called. Then on the following day, one day before the hearing, Ruth takes a trip out of town. At the courthouse on the day of the hearing, Ruth and opposing counsel meet with the judge. The judge's best offer is a no fault PFA for three years. I asked about the 2-1/2 years I was forced to wait for this hearing, shouldn't there be some consideration for that time? The judge said no, it's either this or we have a hearing now. Ruth says, it is better if you take the judge's offer; or we could have the hearing now, if that is what I want. What I want? Go find me an attorney who is ready for trial, and prepared to defend her client. I asked if we could have this hearing continued. Ruth tells me the only way to get this hearing continued was to release her and tell the judge I need time to find alternative counsel. I felt backed into a corner and with no choice, I took her advice and accepted the deal. Soon after I told Ruth that she had failed me, and that I wanted a new hearing. Ruth backed her actions like I've never seen before, I wonder if she defends any of her clients as she would herself? For those entire 16 months Ruth represented me, she never got me one day of visitation with my son. It is because of that failure, my wife and her attorney have stopped the few visitations I just received; because they filed for a stay of visitation, where they have accused me of having no interest in seeing my son for the past 18 months. I expected Ruth to do the job she agreed to and with 40 years of experience, it surprised me that she handled my case so poorly. Surely, twenty-something continuances and one hearing in 16 months, is worth a round of applause. Hip hip, no way! "Try to fail and you will. Greatness is the opposite." MD

Ruth did an amazing job for me in my divorce. I would and am reccomending her to other people.