Holden Barlow Family Lawyers Perth

Firstly we started with one lawyer spent one hour in regards to advise about divorce proceeding. Was charged over $1,000. Made my second appointment with my son. Was told your lawyer is no longer here you are now dealing with a different lawyer Caitlin. Had to go over everything again.nOnce again charged over $300+nWas then told have to pay $1,000 for them to hold. For every phone call they charge &37 every email $37. Phone call for less that a minute same price.nThe service we got was poor and she did not fight at all for our case. Basically we were doing it all ourselves and paying large fees just to get a form 11 done.nWe were told to take over our case ourselves which we did and finalised the form 11.nThen received another bill from Holden Barlow for another $934 for printing and other expenditures of which we never had any photocopies done.nMy dealings with them in particular the lawyer Caitlin is that I would suggest go somewhere else you will get a much better lawyer who will work for you and not charge ridiculous fees.nIn total we spent around $5,000+nwasted as we got no where.nFinalised the form11 ourselves and all we needed was a lawyer to fight our case which she never did but charged very high prices. Suggest go somewhere else.

I had a brief consultation with Caitlin Liddelow. I found her to be extremely informative and helpful while providing this service for free. Her advice was excellent and I would have no hesitation in hiring her or recommending Holden Barlow in the future.

Having recently met with Justin Dorney and Caris Tysoe for an initial consultation, I found them be to professional and thorough. I could see that they had thoroughly reviewed the documentation that I had sent them before the consultation, and the information they provided me was relevant, providing all the help I needed to achieve a successful outcome in my situation. The Holden Barlow Family Law Information Pack and the post-meeting review letter have been especially useful to me. I highly recommend their services.

Please read below public reprimand issued to Justin Dorney, director of Holden Barlow regarding his conduct and that of Laura Hutchinson, a former lawyer at the firm. These reprimands are published on the Legal Practise Board of WA after both were found guilty of unprofessional conduct in the same case. Both attempted to do all possible to fight against the complaint with the Legal Practise Board and not once made any effort to apologise for their behaviour. It was only after the Legal Practise Board found them both guilty of unprofessional conduct that they admitted guilt but still no apology for their behaviour. Justin Dorney attempted to intimidate us with threatening glares but that only showed his character even further. I would stay away from this firm as they have no integrity or honesty and use despicable tactics regardless of the consequences.nnDorney, Justin (54/19) 21 July 2020nOn 21 July 2020 in the exercise of its summary conclusion powers under section 426 of thenLegal Profession Act 2008 (the LP Act) the Legal Profession Complaints Committeen(Committee) resolved pursuant to section 426 of the LP Act that it was satisfied that there is anreasonable likelihood that the practitioner would be found guilty by the State AdministrativenTribunal of unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meanings of sections 402 and 438nof the LP Act in that his conduct fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that anmember of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legalnpractitioner, in that, as the legal practitioner director of a firm (the firm) acting for a client (thenclient) in family law proceedings against Mr S (the father) he failed to:n1. ensure that a legal practitioner employed by the firm as a restricted practitioner pursuant tonsection 50 of the LP Act (the restricted practitioner) was supervised adequately or at all inncircumstances where the restricted practitioner prepared and caused to be sent a letter datedn12 May 2017 (the Principal’s Letter) to the Principal of the school attended by the childrennof the father and the client (the Principal) to a generic email address at the school and innwhich the restricted practitioner:n1.1 conveyed the impression that the Family Court had approved that the father wasnprohibited from having any contact with the children until the next hearing date in thenproceedings when she knew, or ought to have known, that there were no reasonablengrounds to do so or was recklessly indifferent as to whether or not there were reasonablengrounds to do so;n1.2 made serious allegations concerning the Principal’s conduct when she knew, or oughtnto have known, that there were no reasonable grounds or was recklessly indifferent asnto whether or not there were reasonable grounds for the allegations;n1.3 threatened to request an external investigation into the Principal’s “misconduct” in anmanner which was intimidatory and when she knew, or ought to have known, that therenwere no reasonable grounds to do so or was recklessly indifferent as to whether or notnthere were reasonable grounds to do so; andn1.4 caused a copy of the Principal’s Letter to be sent to the Standards and IntegritynDirectorate of the Department of Education in an attempt to intimidate the Principal andnin support of the threat of an external investigation into the Principal’s conduct innrelation to the children; andn2. further or alternatively, take adequate steps to implement and/or maintain appropriatenmanagement systems to ensure that the provision of legal services by the restrictednpractitioner was in accordance with the professional obligations of Australian legalnpractitioners pursuant to section 105(3) of the LP Act.nOutcome: Public Reprimand

The service I received from Justin could not be any better. He was direct, explained things clearly and so informative and helpful. Thankyou so much for your help Justin.