gaylabowen

I am writing to express my deep dissatisfaction wi...

I am writing to express my deep dissatisfaction with the legal representation I received from Michael Balcezak at the Melton Law Firm. While I have the utmost respect for John Melton—whom I consider to be an excellent attorney—my case was handed off to Mr. Balcezak, whose handling of it I found to be negligent, unprofessional, and consistently lacking in diligence.

From the beginning, there were persistent issues with communication, preparation, and follow-through. A particularly troubling example occurred on April 11, 2025, when I inquired whether the arbitrator’s decision had been received. I was then sent a copy dated March 17, 2025—nearly a month earlier—with a note stating, “Attached is the Arbitrator’s decision (my apologies, I thought Michael or John had already sent).” This was the first time I had seen the decision, and I only received it because I asked. Such a delay in communication regarding a critical ruling is completely unacceptable.

Unfortunately, this was not an isolated incident. Other serious concerns include:

Exhibit Preparation: Many of the exhibits Mr. Balcezak prepared were either irrelevant or unused. Critical records that should have been included—such as one intended to directly refute a key testimony—were omitted entirely.

Closing Brief Miscommunication: I was informed that key points had been included in a “closing statement,” only to later discover that arbitration proceedings required a closing brief, not a spoken statement. Despite repeatedly requesting to review the brief before submission, I was never given that opportunity. Mr. Balcezak also agreed—without consulting me—to grant the opposing side an extension of nearly 60 days. I was not made aware of this until after the fact.

Delayed Documentation: I did not receive a copy of the closing brief until ten days after it was due—and only after persistent follow-up. Had I not continued to press the issue, I believe I would not have received it at all.

Ineffective Witness Examination: Although Mr. Balcezak handled most of the witness questioning, he repeatedly failed to follow basic instructions regarding the specific points certain witnesses had been expected to testify to—points that were crucial to the case.

Overall, I felt that I was not only inadequately represented but also excluded from meaningful involvement in my own case. Mr. Balcezak’s approach caused unnecessary confusion and stress, and in my view, compromised the overall strength and integrity of my case.

On the night of December 6th, I sent an internal review to John Melton, with the hopes that he would fix the problem. However, communication became worse thus I was left with no choice but to let prospective client know of my experience in the hope they wouldn't have to endure what I did without having knowledge first.

I am writing to formally express my deep dissatisf...

I am writing to formally express my deep dissatisfaction with the representation I received from Michael Balcezak at the Melton Law Firm. While I have the utmost respect for John Melton—whom I consider to be an excellent attorney—he turned over my case to Mr. Balcezak, whose handling of it I found to be negligent, unprofessional, and consistently lacking in diligence.

From the outset, there were ongoing issues with communication, preparation, and follow-through. A particularly troubling example occurred on April 11, 2025, when I inquired whether the arbitrator’s decision had been received. I was then sent a copy dated March 17, 2025—nearly a month earlier—with a note stating, “Attached is the Arbitrator’s decision (my apologies, I thought Michael or John had already sent).” This was the first time I had seen the decision, and I only received it because I asked. This delay in communication regarding a critical document is unacceptable.

This situation is just one of many. Other serious concerns include:

Exhibit Preparation: Many of the exhibits Mr. Balcezak prepared were irrelevant or unused. Important records that should have been included—such as one meant to directly challenge a key testimony—were omitted.

Closing Brief Miscommunication: I was told the information was included in a “closing statement.” However, I later learned that arbitration only allows for a closing brief, not a spoken statement. I had asked repeatedly to review the closing brief before submission. Despite consistent follow-ups, I was not given the opportunity. Additionally, Mr. Balcezak agreed—without consulting me—to grant the opposing side nearly 60 days for submission. I was not informed of this extension until after the fact.

Failure to Provide Critical Documentation: I only received a copy of the closing brief ten days after it was due—and even then, only after persistent follow-up. If I had not continually requested it, I believe I would never have received it at all.

Inadequate Witness Examination: Mr. Balcezak handled most of the witness questioning, but repeatedly failed to ask the specific questions we had discussed—questions that were crucial to establishing facts in the case.

Overall, I felt that I was not only inadequately represented, but also actively excluded from meaningful participation in my own case. Mr. Balcezak’s handling of the matter caused me unnecessary stress, confusion, and, in my view, compromised the integrity of my case.

I am writing to formally express my deep dissatisf...

I am writing to formally express my deep dissatisfaction with the representation I received from Michael Balcezak at the Melton Law Firm. While I have the utmost respect for John Melton—whom I consider to be an excellent attorney—he turned over my case to Mr. Balcezak, whose handling of it I found to be negligent, unprofessional, and consistently lacking in diligence.

From the outset, there were ongoing issues with communication, preparation, and follow-through. A particularly troubling example occurred on April 11, 2025, when I inquired whether the arbitrator’s decision had been received. I was then sent a copy dated March 17, 2025—nearly a month earlier—with a note stating, “Attached is the Arbitrator’s decision (my apologies, I thought Michael or John had already sent).” This was the first time I had seen the decision, and I only received it because I asked. This delay in communication regarding a critical document is unacceptable.

This situation is just one of many. Other serious concerns include:

Exhibit Preparation: Many of the exhibits Mr. Balcezak prepared were irrelevant or unused. Important records that should have been included—such as one meant to directly challenge a key testimony—were omitted.

Closing Brief Miscommunication: I was told the information was included in a “closing statement.” However, I later learned that arbitration only allows for a closing brief, not a spoken statement. I had asked repeatedly to review the closing brief before submission. Despite consistent follow-ups, I was not given the opportunity. Additionally, Mr. Balcezak agreed—without consulting me—to grant the opposing side nearly 60 days for submission. I was not informed of this extension until after the fact.

Failure to Provide Critical Documentation: I only received a copy of the closing brief ten days after it was due—and even then, only after persistent follow-up. If I had not continually requested it, I believe I would never have received it at all.

Inadequate Witness Examination: Mr. Balcezak handled most of the witness questioning, but repeatedly failed to ask the specific questions we had discussed—questions that were crucial to establishing facts in the case.

Overall, I felt that I was not only inadequately represented, but also actively excluded from meaningful participation in my own case. Mr. Balcezak’s handling of the matter caused me unnecessary stress, confusion, and, in my view, compromised the integrity of my case.

I am posting to express my deep dissatisfaction wi...

I am posting to express my deep dissatisfaction with the representation I received from Michael Balcezak at the Melton Law Firm. While I have the utmost respect for John Melton—whom I consider to be an excellent attorney—he turned over my case to Mr. Balcezak, whose handling of it I found to be negligent, unprofessional, and consistently lacking in diligence.

From the outset, there were ongoing issues with communication, preparation, and follow-through. A particularly troubling example occurred on April 11, 2025, when I inquired whether the arbitrator’s decision had been received. I was then sent a copy dated March 17, 2025—nearly a month earlier—with a note stating, “Attached is the Arbitrator’s decision (my apologies, I thought Michael or John had already sent).” This was the first time I had seen the decision, and I only received it because I asked. This delay in communication regarding a critical document is unacceptable.

This situation is just one of many. Other serious concerns include:

Exhibit Preparation: Many of the exhibits Mr. Balcezak prepared were irrelevant or unused. Important records that should have been included—such as one meant to directly challenge a key testimony—were omitted.

Closing Brief Miscommunication: I was told the information was included in a “closing statement.” However, I later learned that arbitration only allows for a closing brief, not a spoken statement. I had asked repeatedly to review the closing brief before submission. Despite consistent follow-ups, I was not given the opportunity. Additionally, Mr. Balcezak agreed—without consulting me—to grant the opposing side nearly 60 days for submission. I was not informed of this extension until after the fact.

Failure to Provide Critical Documentation: I only received a copy of the closing brief ten days after it was due—and even then, only after persistent follow-up. If I had not continually requested it, I believe I would never have received it at all.

Inadequate Witness Examination: Mr. Balcezak handled most of the witness questioning but repeatedly failed to ask the specific questions we had discussed questions that were crucial to establishing facts in the case.

Overall, I felt that I was not only inadequately represented, but also actively excluded from meaningful participation in my own case. Mr. Balcezak’s handling of the matter caused me unnecessary stress, confusion, and, in my view, compromised the integrity of my case. Don't put yourself through having to deal with an inept attorney such as Michael.

Gayla Bowen