Report: #1500778

Complaint Review: Radovich Law Firm - Billings Montana

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: julie — BILLINGS MT United States
  • Radovich Law Firm 926 Main St. Suite #9 Billings, Montana United States
  • Phone: 406-259-4000
  • Web:
  • Category: ATTORNEY

Radovich Law Firm I hired them to represent me in my divorce. After 28 months and 21,000 later the attorney dropped my case 15days before trial and left me high and dry. She did nothing on the case and now I have to hire another attorney and spend thousands more. Billings Montana

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

·       Your actions taken to withdraw from this case via an email indicating that “You are clearly not happy with my legal advice” is concerning.   Your withdrawal via email without further explanation is at best unprofessional.  You have an obligation to meet with your clients if there is an area of disagreement or you are unhappy with my actions.  You provided no indication that you felt there was an issue and offered no meeting or conversation to discuss any issues in an attempt to resolve them.  Only upon my further inquiry did you indicate you had concerns with supervised visitation yet you made no attempt to discuss, gather additional information as to the agreed upon terms or to meet to attempt to resolve your concerns.


·       According to the ABA, an attorney must give reasonable warning unless the obligation is fulfilled.

1. There was no reasonable warning, you just withdrew from the case,

2. You failed in your obligation to provide a certain amount of time frequency or duration of visits. YOU wrote the stipulation and did not put in the appropriate information and had it signed by the judge. I told you I was doing the best that I could to accommodate visits.

3. I had to cancel one visit because Jacob was being investigated by the Laurel police department for illegal use of medical marijuana. I was advised by the police, that since there was no specific stipulation, I should not move forward until the investigation was complete. I let Samantha know this and tried calling you to let you know however nobody answered the phones when I called on 5 different occasions.

·       As you noted in your email dated, 10/5/2020, the court stipulation does not specify the number, length or frequency of the supervised visits.  There was no discussion with me at any time that the visits should be weekly or in any other frequency.  In fact, in the hallway at the court house for the supervised visits, you specifically said that those issues, frequency, length and timing, should be worked out between the parties and the supervisor, which is what we have done and are doing.  You also indicated in that discussion that I would have the opportunity to meet with the supervisor and address any concerns I had prior to any visits.  That opportunity was not made available to me until the morning of September 13, one and one-half hours before the first visit.  During this meeting, the supervisor was asked if it is typical that a meeting to discuss concerns occurs within less than two hours before a visit. 


·       The visitation supervisor also indicated that since the stipulation is silent on frequency of visits, agreements between the parties would determine frequency, location and length of the visits.

·       You indicated that I chose the supervisor and then was unhappy with her.  I choose the facility and said I thought there was someone named Danielle.  The supervisor assigned is named Samantha.  And yes, I was initially unhappy but after meeting with Samantha face-to-face I resolved any issue I had.  Supervised visits have required me to allow my young children to be left with a person they do not know to meet with their father who I know to be unstable and capable of violent actions.  I have the right and the duty to fully understand the situation so that I can be sure my children are safe.   When asked what actions the supervisor would take in the event of untoward behavior or an attempt to take a child, she responded that she would stop any visit for untoward behavior and attempt to stop a child being taken and call the police.   I have the right and the duty to know how potential unsafe situations will be handled before visits occur.  Had you attempted to gather information and meet with me, you would be aware that those issues have been resolved and supervision is occurring as agreed to by both parties.

·       You have made assumptions about the agreements made between the supervisor and both parties without informing yourself of the actual agreements between the parties. Had you spoken to me about it you would have known that I talked with Samantha and we worked things out.  After Samantha and I were able to meet face-to-face I felt better about the situation and thanked her for providing me with the necessary information to move forward.   Text messages between Samantha and I substantiate this resolution.

·       The first visit occurred on September 13 and was delayed until that time as the supervisor was under COVID quarantine until September 30, the paternity test results were not yet available and the supervisor was unable to meet with me until September 13 after repeated attempts to set up a meeting.

·       Kevin Sweeney indicated in mediation no further action would be taken on visitation or custody in general until results of the paternity test had been received and stopped mediation until such time as the tests were available.  Kevin also said that visitation would be limited to Jacob’s wallet (his ability to pay) and the availability of the supervisor.  You offered no specific advice as to whether we should heed his comments or how to proceed in light of those comments.

·       The supervisor was not available on September 20 so no visits were scheduled for that week.

·       Prior to the agreement of supervised visitations, I had made commitments and had to be out of town Labor Day weekend and well as the week of October 7th-13th. We continued the court hearing as it was previously scheduled for that week. You and Kevin agreed to push it out to the 22nd of October. I had let the visitation supervisor know in advance and she informed Jacob.  Again, text messages substantiate this information.

·       The supervisor indicated in an email dated September 3rd that visits would be weekly however that statement was made prior to my meeting with the supervisor on September 13 and had not yet been agreed to by both parties.  This was an assumption made by the supervisor prior to meeting with me and a different schedule was subsequently agreed to.

·       Jacob has not requested weekly visits and has agreed to visits on what appears to be every other week.  He also agreed to a 1 hour for the first visit and 1 ½ hour for the second visit.  A third visit is scheduled for October 18 but length and location have not yet been determined.

·       In a client-Lawyer relationship the Lawyer must:

(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent, as defined in Rule 1.0(e), is required by these Rules;

(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;

(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;

(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and

(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.

(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation.

·       You did not follow any of these. Furthermore, a lawyer must comply with applicable law requiring notice or permission of a tribunal when terminating a representation. I have yet to see permission from tribunal for you to withdraw from this case. After 28 months and 20 days from our scheduled divorce hearing on October 22, you have withdrawn from the case leaving me in great hardship, financially and emotionally, and I have had to take additional time off of work in order to sort this matter out. You did not take steps to reasonable protect my interests, allowing me time for employment of other counsel.


·       After 28 months of employing you and $21,107.50 invested into this I have not received anything from your services. I am still not divorced.  I still do not receive child support even though I repeatedly asked for your help in this matter.  Although I asked you multiple times about a hearing on the contempt charges on Jacob, you have never attempted to hold Jacob accountable in court for contempt on 7 different violations.   This case has ongoing since August 2018 (28 months) and has not been resolved in what would be considered a reasonable amount of time.  Therefore, I am asking that you return to me all of the money I have paid you since you have not finished the job you were hired to do.  I am asking for $21,107.50 to be returned to me by October 20th, 2020.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 10/10/2020 06:13 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/report/radovich-law-firm/billings-montana-i-hired-1500778. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now