Complaints

This profile includes complaints for Meriwether and Tharp's headquarters and its corporate-owned locations. To view all corporate locations, see Find Local Branches.

close

Find a Location

Meriwether and Tharp has 2 locations, listed below.

*This company may be headquartered in or have additional locations in another country. Please click on the country abbreviation in the search box below to change to a different country location.

BBB accredited

Near

Country

USUnited States

Please enter a valid location.

Filter

• 

  Meriwether and Tharp

  506 Roswell Street Northeast Marietta, GA 30060

• 

  Meriwether and Tharp

  11475 Great Oaks Way STE 125 Alpharetta, GA 30022-2485

The complaint text that is displayed might not represent all complaints filed with BBB. Some consumers may elect to not publish the details of their complaints, some complaints may not meet BBB's standards for publication, or BBB may display a portion of complaints when a high volume is received for a particular business.

• Initial Complaint

  Date:09/26/2022

  Type:Service or Repair Issues
  Status:

  AnsweredMore info

  Complaint statuses

  Resolved:

  The complainant verified the issue was resolved to their satisfaction.

  Unresolved:

  The business responded to the dispute but failed to make a good faith effort to resolve it.

  Answered:

  The business addressed the issues within the complaint, but the consumer either a) did not accept the response, OR b) did not notify BBB as to their satisfaction.

  Unanswered:

  The business failed to respond to the dispute.

  Unpursuable:

  BBB is unable to locate the business.

  In October of 2021, I hired ************************************************ LLC to handle my family law case. I am filing a complaint against this firm for legal negligence. My hired legal team did not review the documents submitted by the opposing counsel prior to mediation. Since they failed to complete their due diligence prior to mediation, mediation wasn't successful because all the financial records and assets were not submit as required. They should have not proceeded to mediation without all the martial assets on the table for discussion and division. They also informed me they did not prepare for mediation. This action was a violation of the State Bar of Georgia: Rule 1.3 Diligence [2] A lawyer's work load should be controlled so that each matter can be handled competently. In another instance my legal counsel agreed to a consent order without informing me, of the situation and it was submitted to court with out my knowledge. This action was a violation of the State Bar of Georgia: [5] The client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued, to the extent the client is willing and able to do so. Adequacy of communication depends in part on the kind of advice or assistance that is involved. On 12/01/21- the attorney was late to court and not only was she late she did not represent me in court. Once the opposing counsel stated there case and my legal team response was " she agreed to everything the opposing counsel stated" those were her actual words. I have it recorded as proof. She also tried to delay the court case after the judge had given a date, she asked for a later date. Which is intentional delay of case. Which is a violation of Georgia State Bar rule, delay of case. There were domestic violence and parenting plan issues they did not resolve and caused more violence and police reporting. They truly failed me and my children.

  Business Response

  Date: 10/03/2022

  ************ is mistaken about the level of preparation for mediation, which was court ordered.  She refused to provide her counsel with her financial documents and was aware her husband had not provided the firm with all of the financial documents we requested.  Nonetheless, she insisted we attempt to settle the case - despite knowing we did not have the full financial picture.  We confirmed in an email to her on 1/24/22 that she wanted to proceed with the mediation despite not having all of the financial documents we requested.  At mediation, when ************ refused her settlement demands, ************ used the lack of financial information as a reason to terminate the mediation. Three days later, ************ threatened to make a false police report regarding her husband and also alleged he submitted a false tax return as part of the financial information he provided in discovery.  She also refused to authorize the firm to engage in good faith discovery discussions with opposing counsel, which discussions are a prerequisite to filing a motion to compel the production of outstanding discovery (such as the missing financial documents).

  Counsel was not late to court, but was in the Zoom waiting room until the Court let her in for the status conference. Once the status conference started, counsel did agree with what opposing counsel stated to the Court: the parties are married and have two children (born in 2017 and 2019); that we had not finished negotiating a temporary order; and that both sides were working on completing ****** County Mandatory Discovery and requested mediation after initial discovery.  Both of those are and were true statements.

  With respect to the consent order, ************ is again mistaken as to the process.  The firm forwarded a draft order to her on 12/8/21 at 4:10 for her review and approval.  At 9:29 pm, ************ responded with several comments and additions that exceeded the scope of the Court's scheduling order.  Opposing counsel independently submitted the draft that was consistent with the Court's instructions. **************** counsel, not having received **************** permission, neither consented to the Order nor submitted the order on her behalf.  

  On January 29, 2022, ************ voiced her concerns to firm management and stated she did not have any "ethical issues or bar grievance-type issues/concerns."  She was, however, unhappy with the level of communication with her first attorney.  To resolve her dissatisfaction over "good communication [which] was not the same as amazing communication," she said she would be fully satisfied with receiving a refund of her initial retainer and being transferred to a new team within the firm.  During that same conversation, ************ was informed in detail of her options for pursuing a Temporary Protective Order under the Family Violence Act, both through the firm and through free public resources through the court.  When ************ asked for a payment plan or for (essentially) free representation, she was told that was not an option in her case.   At no point after that conversation did ************ indicate any dissatisfaction with our services until the firm's billing department attempted to collect her past due bill.  On April 7, 2022, ************ terminated the firm's representation and emailed her identical complaints demanding a refund. When questioned also (in April) as to what outstanding issues there were, ************ failed to respond until September 26th - the same day she submitted her complaint to the BBB also demanding a refund.