Wayne J Wimer

I contacted Mr. Wimer for an initial consult. The case was involving construction law, I hired a licensed & bonded contractor who damaged my property & then hid that damage.
Before my initial consultation I thought that Mr. Wimer would be honest & give me decent legal advice. I had all the evidence, time line, & was in the process of getting verification of my initial home structural inspection report. Mr. Wimer’s did not take the evidence copies I provided him, which I thought was strange.
Sadly, Mr. Wimer provided no new information or new legal advice during my consult. He advised to continue what I was already doing; (getting the verification & additional information of the structural inspection done on my home prior to damage). At the end of the consult we came to a verbal agreement that he would represent me once I got the home inspector’s affirmation letter. When asked about taking the case on contingency he stated he would consider it, & he would contact me back once I had the inspection report. Unfortunately, Mr. Wimer had another agenda. There were three MAJOR concerns that I had with Mr. Wimer which are unethical at best & at worst could jeopardize his law license.
1) I asked if Mr. Wimer would take my case based on contingency, though we (my son & I) would provide all legal court costs & retainer fee’s, etc. if the case went to court. Mr. Wimer stated, «We will discuss that more once you have contacted the home inspector.» However much later, Mr. Wimer later admitted that he had no intention of taking it on contingency. If he had stated this upfront I would have left immediately & not shared our case with him.
2) Mr. Wimer nor his scheduler ever disclosed that he charged for his initial consult. After we (my son & I) were done providing the basics of our case & evidence; Mr. Wimer proceeded to tell us casual stories of his life experiences wasting precious time that he then charged for. While this was polite conversation, I find this type of behavior unethical, especially in light that I was charged for his story telling. I never found out I was being charged until I received the bill in the mail. These casual stories he elected to tell wasted valuable time I was charged for, and he refused to work with me on this wasted time.
3) When I informed Mr. Wimer that I had successfully gotten the home inspectors statement. I left numerous messages which were never returned over a period of 3 – 4 months. Unbeknownst to me, Mr. Wimer had decided to drop my case without informing me. I only found out about it by a fluke chance. During that specific time, Mr. Wimer stated that he never had any intentions of taking my case on a contingency basis. I felt that Mr. Wimer was at best dishonest because I had specifically addressed this issue at the beginning of the consult, & would have ended the consultation right there. Instead Mr. Wimer misrepresented himself implying contingency was a legitimate option.
When I tried to resolve the issues about Mr. Wimer dropping my case without notification, his initial non-​disclosed consult charge, and his intentional wasting of time on non-​pertinent case materials, he refused to discuss this. The only time I ever received a response was when I sent in a physical letter. In his correspondence Mr. Wimer was confused & extremely mistaken over what occurred at the initial consult, such as my son offering to pay for the retainer, office costs, & court fees incurred & NOT the initial consultation fee. Mr. Wimer later claimed this was disclosed, yet if I was told this, I would never have scheduled an appointment. Sadly, There was no written contract presented, something any reputable professional would do. This is something that is a basic requirement for ALL contract law. There was no explicit or implicit contract at the time of my visit. I likely would have been within my rights to not pay, yet I was ethical and paid to provide this evaluation here.
Furthermore, when I informed Mr. Wimer that I would be critiquing his services and customer relations; he threatened me with legal action if I were to besmirch his name. I am writing this evaluation only because I had secured a legal contract with Mr. Wimer when I paid his bill stating I would be providing a feedback. Thankfully, Mr. Wimer did not read the statement I provided when I stated he would be getting an critical evaluation at the time I was paying his stated bill. I do not know if he has done this to other people in the past. Which would explain his lack of reviews especially since he has been in practice for over 40 years.

I would highly recommend you seek professional legal advice elsewhere.