Sciberras Advocates Avis 

Ħallast €300 f’Mejju għal proċedura li qaluli kellha tieħu madwar ġimgħa. Għaddew kważi tliet xhur u l-proċedura għadha ma ġietx konkluża. Eżatt wara li sar il-ħlas, il-komunikazzjoni nbidlet b’mod drammatiku, minn risposti ta’ malajr għal risposti qosra u sporadiċi, sakemm eventwalment waqfu jwieġbu għal kollox. Ilhom żmien twil ma jwieġbu la l-emails u lanqas it-telefonati.

Jiddispjaċini, iżda din hija mġiba profondament diżappuntanti u mhux professjonali. Il-bidla fil-mod kif ġejt trattat qabel u wara l-ħlas hija franchement inaċċettabbli.

L-iskadenza li tajt fl-aħħar email tiegħi qed toqrob. Jekk tridu tikkuntattjawni, din hija okkażjoni tajba biex tagħmlu dan.

AĠĠORNAMENT:
Wara li ppubblikajt dawn ir-reviews fuq Google u Trustpilot, l-avukat reġa’ deher u aċċetta li jagħtini r-release biex inkompli l-każ ma’ avukat ieħor. Madankollu, biex jagħtini kopja tad-dokumenti tal-kawża tiegħi stess, talabni l-ewwel inneħħi r-reviews negattivi. Wara dan, iddeċidejt li nwaqqaf il-komunikazzjoni miegħu.

Nota wkoll li kwalunkwe risposta li tista’ tingħata li “s-servizz ġie pprovdut” ma tindirizzax il-punt tar-review. Il-problema li wasslet għal dawn ir-reviews mhijiex sempliċement ir-riżultat tal-proċedura, iżda l-mod kif ġiet trattata l-kwistjoni, b’mod partikolari l-bidla fil-komunikazzjoni wara l-ħlas, li bdiet tonqos gradwalment sakemm eventwalment waqfet għal kollox.

Sought lawyer for libel case. Paid for cease & desist letter with intention of following up with civil litigation if needed. Provided Daniil all the relevant info and made a concerted effort to do so in a way that saved him time.

The ineffectual letter itself is not my main source of contention. Daniil and I had different visions. I wanted to bridge the gap between me and the other side and to notify an elusive corporate hierarchy of the individual responsible. I wanted conciliatory measures to deescalate the situation and the letter detailed in scope enough to deter further legal action (to avoid bloating costs). Daniil insisted the letter simply be a call to attention with details to be addressed at a later stage. I also indicated my dislike for his binary and litigious tone. Being a bully and litigious was part of the libel I was fighting. Daniil overruled me and I was forced to acquiesce. Predictably, the other side responded with a short, nondescript letter of noncompliance.

My real gripe is the dismissive and rude attitude I got afterwards, along with an utter failure of basic disclosure/communication. Emails would be ignored. I'd be ghosted for weeks. Eventually, Adrian finally had the decency to tell me that he was dumping me as a customer. No explanation. No referral. No advice. Plenty of clues along the way from which to infer he hadn't really engaged what I wrote. Adrian treated me like an irritant not worth this time, and it was clear he was only vaguely aware of case details. He would make infantilizing remarks about obvious and irrelevant details...the other side may or may not respond and that I was free to take things up in the courts, etc. This after detailing how hard it had been and would be to get a lawyer, let alone a new lawyer with the burden of explaining why the previous one backed out without an explanation. Also, the whole strategy of the cease & desist was predicated upon further legal action, and I will likely have to deal with the fallout of an even more diminished image given actions I made on what became false pretenses. I would have sent no letter at all if I knew I'd be dumped. The loss of time will also seriously complicate any hopes of moving forward.

Based on my experience, I will make the following speculations of how Adrian and his firm operate.

-He is more likely to retain customers if he thinks he can extract a high hourly return for jobs with standardized prices, i.e. his clients are docile, their cases simple, and he can stretch the process out for more fees without resistance.

-He is perhaps easily intimidated by a name lawyer on the other side and is hesitant to take on a corporation of any scope.

-He prioritizes self-optimization over justice.

-He considers his time intrinsically more valuable than his clients.

-He tries to leverage a lawyer's name and uses needlessly legalistic wording to intimidate the other side and brand the firm.

All those things may be normalized within the legal industry, but, if true, they still bear mentioning. I also want to say that I am not utterly naive. I expect antipathy from any lawyer I hire. They are businessmen. Still, I expect a minimum of professionalism. Adrian is under no obligation to retain someone as a customer, but if he is going to pump and dump his clients in this manner, he should expect this type of feedback.

Random Notes:
-Adrian refused to provide any other pricing and service parameter information when requested and could not be bothered to provide a basic outline of potential proceedings past the cease & desist letter. There were implications that things would proceed further as needed.

-Adrian expressed that he had, in his opinion, gone above and beyond his obligations.

-Adrian would project a sort of vacuous sheen of professionalism, using words like "kindly", to mask over what he was actually communicating.

Full disclosure: Adrian has preemptively stated he will not respond to this, so you should make no conclusions based on that alone.

Update: Adrian had preemptively stated he would not respond and has now backtracked. The response's lack of specificity, introspection, and examination is emblematic of my complaint. Just optics.