Reviews

Lawyer Geoff has been more than a lawyer. He has helped me navigate the system and fulfilled my duty flawlessly. He has counselled me on an issue pertaining to maintaining a clearance. He has gone beyond and above to get me the best outcome. I can't thank him enough.

I retained David Fiske to protect my interests and enforce a settlement agreement, requiring a special master to maximize the redevelopment value of property prior to marketing it. Mr. Fiske refused to ask for a hearing to address violations of the agreement, he refused to withdraw and I was prohibited by the magistrate judge from replacing him. Mr. Fiske was attributed with making a false report that the zoning was going to expire to hasten the sale of the property below value. Mr. Fiske false told the special master I was in favor of selling the property without attempting to maximize value. I lost millions and still have not received what the property sold for because the court ordered me to release Mr. Fiske prior to disbursing my money, Mr. Fikse violated Rule of Professional Responsibility 1.8 accepting the protection of its orders.

I retained David Fiske after settlement of a lawsuit brought to dissolve a partnership. I gave Fiske specific instructions his only task was to represent me when a Special Master made his recommendations to the court about what to do with the Partnership property. The Mediation judge promised to release the attorneys twice but the person appointed the Special Master decided to force me to retain Fiske to work for him at my expense. He told Fiske as long as he and the opposing counsel agreed, he would allow them to manage the business. This meant Fiske was on a cash cow with more incentive to listen to the opposing counsel than to me. The agreement allowed the Master to "hire professions, TO BE PAID BY THE PARTNERSHIP". Fiske ignored my requests to ask for a hearing with the judge in charge of overseeing the agreement to address this as well as other violations of the agreement. As NONE of the attorneys were paid for by the partnership, none of them had a duty of loyalty or care to the partnership. One of the opposing counsel represents a limited partner who was the previous tenant of the property. He was ruled economically antagonistic to the partnership by the Supreme Court of VA because of his lawsuits and repeatedly expressed intent to get control of the partnership property. Since settlement he has made three offers to buy the property and his business partners interested in developing the property also make offers. The property is in the revitalization district in Springfield, and the supervisor of planning for Fairfax said he would allow re-zoning and plan amendments to double or even triple the FAR, which would greatly increase the value. The Master was supposed to pursue this but he and his crew of attorneys never did and Fiske would not "remind them". I gave Fiske keys to the buildings as well as photographs of damages the tenant was responsible for and emails concerning EPA remediation. Fiske did not deliver these to the Master. The Plaintiff's attorney was put in charge of getting the appraisal and failed to get the contract signed for several weeks. Then he went on vacation and no one provided keys to the appraiser so the report was delayed for months. The Plaintiff's attorney also ordered the appraisal for it's lowest value and refused to get leasing values as required by the agreement. I was not permitted to pay to get the additional information required by the agreement. Ignoring my instructions not to apply for bank loans without the appraisal, Fiske was turned down by the banks. Now the partnership is bankrupt and unable to pay bills and taxes. They finally got a loan but the amount they secured would only cover their fees (if they abided by the agreement) for two weeks. The partnership property will never realize it's full potential value. I fired Fiske after I got his first bill for ten thousand dollars for a little over two weeks. I refused to communicate with him but he continues to "work for me". The Plaintiff sent an email to the Master congratulating him on the progress being made and reminding everyone they would be first in line to be paid when the property is sold. The Master decided to have a "mini trial" in April, eight months after settlement, to decide if the Limited partner, who was also the previous tenant of the property, is responsible for damages to the property. There is a provision in the agreement that the parties release claims and counter claims they have brought or could have brought against each other. When the Limited partner made his last offer, which was 3.7 million dollars below the appraised value and the other defendant and I rejected it, his attorney decided he was going to depose us. I was served a subpoena for a lawsuit the limited party was not a party in, a lawsuit that was supposed to have been settled. I am being denied representation of my choice, which is a violation of my constitutional rights.