Brian Snell
During my consultation, his responses to my questions often began with “that’s a great question,” but then shifted into why he couldn’t directly answer them. It felt to me like there was an implied caveat that he could only provide specific guidance if I formally retained him as a client. I left the consultation feeling like I had paid $150 largely to hear a sales pitch rather than receive actionable guidance. When I asked whether I should file a motion to reopen, a motion to reconsider, or both, he explained the differences between the options but declined to give his opinion on which might apply to my situation. After we finished discussing my questions in about 10–15 minutes, we still had time remaining. I had previously sent him the I-290B form and asked whether he could review it during the remaining time. He explained that document review was an additional service he offers. I attempted to explain that I was simply seeking general guidance, similar to how I—as an engineer—might offer informal advice without stamping plans or assuming liability. While I understand that legal practice has nuances I don’t fully grasp (as he pointed out to me), the tone of the conversation changed at that point, and I personally felt talked down to. He also stated that he felt I was bullying him, which was not my intention. To be clear, I believe he likely does excellent work for clients who formally retain him, and his professional record suggests that. However, based on my experience, if you are handling your own paperwork and are looking for general guidance rather than formal representation, I would not recommend paying the consultation fee.
