Report a problem
Judy's Book takes violations of our Terms of Use very seriously. We encourage you to read through our Terms of Use before filling report with us.
After careful review, we may remove content or replace a content warning page before viewing content deemed offensive, harmful, or dangerous.
Additionally, we are aware that there may be content on Judy's Book that is personal in nature or feels invasive. Please note that Judy's Book is a provider of content creation tools, not a mediator of content. We allow our users express their opinions, but we don't make any claims about the content of these pages. We strongly believe in freedom of expression, even if a review contains unappealing or distasteful content or present negative viewpoints. We realize that this may be frustrating, and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you. In cases where contact information for the author is listed on the page, we recommend that you work directly with this person to have the content in question removed or changed.
Here are some examples of content we will not remove unless provided with a court order:
Personal attacks or alleged defamation
Political or social commentary
Distasteful imagery or language
If we've read the Terms of Use and believe that this review below violates our Terms of Use, please complete the following short form.

Businiess name:  Harmon Bryon W
Review by:  citysearch c.
Review content: 
The Honorable Anthony J. DePanfilis Norwalk Probate Court Ea s t Avenue P.O. Box 2009 Norwalk, CT 06852-2009 Re: 2010 Billing by Shipman and Goodwin for Estate of Johnson Lee Dear Judge DePanfilis, Just over a year ago, on November 30, 2009 I wrote you a letter regarding my concerns about over billing practices by Shipman and Goodman, for administering and performing legal work for the Johnson Lee Estate. Fast-forward a year, to Shipman and Goodwin' s 2010 invoices and nothing has changed. The 2010 bills totaling $457,000, covering for the most part, a thirteen-month period, are as problematic as their prior bills. The conflict of interest issue that I raised with you last year, continues to prevent Attorney Gustafson's ability to reign in his firm's billing practices. He continues to serve as the fox guarding the henhouse. More recently, in a November 23, 2010 Objection to the Shipman and Goodwin, LLP invoices, I along with other beneficiaries again advised you of the administrator's over billing and conflict of interest issue. In that objection we requested that this court order an independent review of past and present Shipman and Goodwin invoices, to protect the estate against conflict of interest and the possibility that legal bills will drive the estate into insolvency. Table 1 contains, as with my 2009 letter, examples of endless duplicative billings by attorneys and paralegals. Particularly shameful are duplicate billings by two, three, even four attorneys for the same meetings or hearings. Table I also underscores that Shipman and Goodwin continue to overstaff and bill at high paralegal rates for secretarial tasks. Exploitative billings continue for basic property management tasks at $395/hour attorney rates as shown in Table 2. During the thirteen-month period between September 2009 and October 20 I 0, Shipman and Goodwin billed a total of 447,300.50. The firm's monthly bum rate during that period was $34,407.31 per month. For the $267,072 administrative bill alone, the bum rate was $20,544 per month. Two paralegals listed in the administrative bill during the thirteen month period billed $134,638.70 for a paralegal administrative bum rate of $10,356.82 per month. The use of resources in opposing Jonathan Le e ' s claims that the Devonwood Properties were owned by the JL Development Group LP was outrageous. Shipman and Goodwin assigned one of their top partners to write a brief at the rate of $500 per hour, and had him meet with two other partners to discuss the brief. Conferring among three partners' approaches $1300 per hour - all of which was billed. There is no question that if Shipman and Goodman were billing a private client using this billing structure, they would have been fired long ago. To eliminate the dark cloud of doubt surrounding the current billings, I URGE YOU TO PUT THE BRAKES ON SHIPMAN AND GOODWIN AND LIMIT THE PAYMENT OF THE CURRENT INVOICES TO $150,000 as requested in the November 23,2010 Objection to the Shipman and Goodwin, LLP Invoices. Until such time that all their invoices, both past and current are adjusted to eliminate over billings by an affordable neutral professional with strong expertise in reasonable and appropriate administrative and legal billing practices that serve to protect the solvency of the estate, I urge you not to consider any further payments to Shipman and Goodwin. Finally, TO STOP THE BLEEDING OF THE ESTATE BY SHIPMAN AND GOODWIN, I further urge you to also deny any future billings by them unless these bills are also adjusted to eliminate over billings by an affordable neutral professional with strong expertise in reasonable and appropriate administrative and legal billing practices that serve to protect the solvency of the estate before submission to the court for hearing.

Reasons for reporting (512 characters left):
 or  Cancel