Unprofessional Service, Poor Advice, and an Expensive Experience
I deliberately waited before writing this review so I could reflect on the outcome of my case with new representation. During my time with Alun, I was told that my expectation of achieving 50/50 shared care of my children was unrealistic.
With the support of my new solicitor, I have now achieved exactly that, 50/50 shared care, along with a 70/30 split of the equity in the family home. This outcome speaks for itself and highlights a significant difference in approach, advice, and level of support.
My experience with Alun was, unfortunately, very poor. I found the service to be unprofessional, lacking in preparation, and at times dismissive. On one occasion, I was billed for preparation for a call where it became clear key documents had not been reviewed beforehand, and I was asked basic case details that I would expect any solicitor to already know. This did not give me confidence that my case was being handled with the care or attention it required.
There were also repeated issues with communication and delays. Important responses were not provided in a timely manner, and I often had to chase for updates. Combined with errors in correspondence and missed financial details that I had to raise myself, this raised serious concerns about attention to detail.
I was also disappointed with the approach to billing. Being charged for time where meetings started late, and even for emails sending invoices, did not feel proportionate or reflective of a fair service.
I also believe I received poor legal advice which ultimately cost me both time and money. I was advised to proceed with a Form E process that, according to both my new solicitor and my ex-partner’s solicitor, was not necessary in my circumstances. This resulted in unnecessary delays and costs, and I ultimately incurred over £1,000 in additional expense to move to a new solicitor and correct the situation.
Perhaps most concerning was the tone taken when I raised these issues. Rather than addressing my concerns constructively, they were dismissed as “unrealistic,” and attributed to my personal circumstances. I found this response unprofessional and unhelpful at a time when I needed clear guidance and strong representation.
I was looking for a solicitor to advocate for me and support me through a difficult situation. Instead, I felt my position was being undermined rather than supported.
Based on my experience, I would not recommend this service. The contrast with my new legal team, who have been proactive, prepared, and supportive throughout, has made it clear what a professional service should look like.
Antwoord van Alun Jones Familylaw
We are concerned and disappointed to read this review and do not accept the reviewer's assessment of the service provided. The allegations made do not fairly or accurately reflect the professional advice and representation delivered during the course of the retainer. Accordingly, we feel bound to respond here.
As a specialist family law practice, we are unable to comment in detail on any individual case in a public forum. However, we can confirm that the advice given was based squarely on the reviewer's instructions, the information available at the time, and our professional assessment of the legal position then applying. We stand fully and unequivocally by that advice.
Family law outcomes often depend on developments that arise after a solicitor's involvement ends. It is therefore not appropriate to compare earlier advice with outcomes reached later under different circumstances.
The reviewer's comments regarding financial disclosure are also incorrect. Completion of Form E is the standard mechanism for full and frank disclosure in financial remedy proceedings and reflects established professional obligations and accepted good practice. The advice provided on this issue was entirely appropriate.
Concerns similar to those now raised publicly were addressed in correspondence in June last year. At that time, we confirmed that we stood by the advice given and reminded the reviewer of the firm's formal complaints procedure and the option of independent review by the Legal Ombudsman. That route has not been pursued. It is therefore disappointing that disputed matters have instead been repeated in a public forum.
During the retainer it also became clear that there was a developing mismatch in expectations regarding the conduct of the case. To avoid any interruption to representation, we cooperated promptly in facilitating a transfer to alternative solicitors.
This review is not reflective of the experience of the overwhelming majority of our clients. We remain confident that the advice provided was appropriate and professionally sound, and consider that the matters raised would not be upheld if assessed through the Legal Ombudsman's independent complaints process.
We are nevertheless pleased that matters have now concluded and wish the reviewer well for the future.
