Young KuJuly 15, 2026
I contacted Cantrell Schuette seeking an initial consultation regarding a significant business dispute. Instead of receiving the professionalism, guidance, thoughtful legal insight, and respect one would reasonably expect from a firm of this caliber, I experienced what was, without question, the most uncomfortable, disrespectful, and unprofessional interaction I have ever had with an attorney.
From the very beginning of the call, Matthew Ceriale devoted a remarkable amount of focus and energy to criticizing my introductory email rather than discussing the substance of my legal matter. Instead of focusing on evaluating the merits of my case, he seemed much more fixated on the fact that I had used AI to draft the email, treating it as though it somehow reflected negatively on my intelligence or credibility.
He chose to openly mock my correspondence, firing off remarks like, 'Did AI write that or did you write that?', 'Looks like AI wrote it,' and dismissively labeling my email as 'your AI notes you sent to us.' These statements alone demonstrated a level of condescension and disrespect that I never expected from an attorney representing a reputable law firm. It was not only unnecessary, but entirely unrelated to the purpose of the consultation. It is purely smug, combative, and serves absolutely zero legal or diagnostic purpose. It proves Matthew wasn't trying to understand my business dispute; he was just trying to insult my intelligence to make himself feel superior.
In today's professional environment, AI assisted drafting tools are extremely commonplace. Attorneys, executives, accountants, consultants, business owners, and countless other professionals routinely use AI and other modern technologies to organize, refine, and enhance their communications.
Whether an introductory email was drafted manually or with the assistance of AI has absolutely no bearing on the legal merits of a potential case. Instead, Mr. Ceriale appeared far more interested in criticizing me than engaging in a meaningful discussion about the legal issues for which I had sought the firm's advice.
Throughout the conversation, his tone remained consistently dismissive, unnecessarily critical, and combative. Straightforward questions were met with condescension rather than thoughtful answers. Rather than helping a prospective client understand whether the matter was legally viable, the interaction often felt more like a series of attempts to criticize my wording or score rhetorical points than to provide legal guidance.
What should have been a professional introductory consultation instead became an unnecessarily hostile experience. By the end of the call, I was simply relieved for it to be over. Throughout the conversation, I felt repeatedly belittled and spoken down to, as though I were being bullied rather than treated as a prospective client.
The greatest disappointment is that this interaction reflects not merely on one associate attorney, but on the standards of professionalism expected from the firm itself. A prospective client should never leave an introductory consultation feeling belittled, mocked, or personally criticized instead of receiving a fair and professional evaluation of the legal matter that prompted the consultation.
Before the call had even concluded, I had already decided that I could not entrust my legal matter to this firm. Regardless of a firm's reputation or legal ability, professionalism, respect, and basic human decency are fundamental to the attorney client relationship.
The golden rule of business intake is that the initial consultation is when a firm is supposed to be on its absolute best behavior. It is the "courtship" phase. If an associate feels this comfortable mocking, bullying and belittling a potential client before a retainer is even signed, he will be an absolute nightmare to deal with once the firm already has your money.
via Google
