Brittany JordanDecember 19, 2025
I paid a $125 case review fee for a consultation with attorney Daniel Williams regarding a federal employment and EEO matter. Unfortunately, it became clear very quickly that my case was not meaningfully reviewed.
Despite having spent months compiling extensive documentation and evidence into a binder for review, Mr. Williams did not ask about my evidence, timeline, or what had actually occurred. He frequently interrupted me, and I often had to repeat myself multiple times because I was misunderstood or cut off before finishing my thoughts. This made it extremely difficult to communicate clearly and feel heard.
Mr. Williams made dismissive comments about disability, including stating that I “didn’t look disabled,” and repeatedly put me in the position of having to justify my disability and explain why commuting exacerbates my symptoms. Rather than asking relevant legal questions, the tone of the consultation felt confrontational and belittling.
When I referenced the amount of preparation and research I had done, including compiling detailed evidence and reviewing comparator case information, Mr. Williams made condescending remarks about “Google searches.” I found this particularly offensive. I am a doctoral candidate and am well versed in conducting evidence-based research and reviewing case files. Much of the groundwork for understanding this case had already been done prior to the consultation, yet none of it was meaningfully engaged with.
Additionally, the consultation itself was difficult to engage in due to constant interruptions and excessive coughing throughout the meeting, which Mr. Williams attributed to something “going down the wrong pipe.” Regardless of the cause, the ongoing coughing and interruptions significantly disrupted communication. Given that I have a disability that makes processing conversation under these conditions difficult, this further contributed to feeling unheard and dismissed.
The discussion shifted quickly to billing at $400 per hour or potential contingency representation later, without any substantive legal analysis of my facts. The consultation felt transactional rather than advisory.
I do want to note that the office staff was incredibly kind, welcoming, and professional. The staff member I interacted with (I am not sure of her exact role) was courteous and supportive, which made the contrast with the consultation itself even more apparent.
I left feeling dismissed and attacked rather than advised. If you are a federal employee seeking knowledgeable, respectful representation in employment or EEO matters, I would strongly recommend seeking counsel elsewhere.
via Google
