Miller Nash LLP

Oct 20th, 2023

Oct 15th, 2023

Nov 18th, 2021

My experience with Miller Nash has been distressing. Its frustrating that I have to resort to a review on a public forum to (hopefully) expedite completion of a task, but I do not feel heard despite multiple attempts at reaching out. As an advocate for my organization and its employees, I am compelled to share my experience. I hired a partner from Miller Nash for an investigation into a sensitive matter that has created conflict in our business - it is not a unique issue to our our organzation, however it impacted the well being of employees and our business - we were therefore quick to get Miller Nash LLP involved. Instead of assisting in mediating the conflict in a time-sensitive matter, we are still in an uncomfortable limbo more than six months later, with no projected end date. This has created strife with all parties involved in this investigation at our organization. We are all ready to move forward, but feel tied down to the process Miller Nash LLP has outlined for us. To quote other attorneys I have curb-sided for advice on our situation, "this is a serious matter and should have been dealt with in a week." Instead, their involvement, or lack there-of, has exacerbated the situation. To Miller Nash, LLP - I understand the complex nature of some investigations, however when people and companies are hurting, I would have expected more compassion. Compassion can take the form of communicating a timeline/deadline, preliminary advice to quell any immediate concerns, or even just reaching out for updates so the client does not feel like they are bothering you with weekly emails. There is a difference between being fast and efficient, and this process has been anything but efficient. As a professional myself, I understand that some situations can be challenging to deal with - but ignoring them can result in further harm. So far, they have not demonstrated the qualities of a professional organization. I would be more than happy to share my concerns if a representative were to reach out.
Jan 15th, 2024

Update 2/22/23: Ms Rawlinson apparently updated her original analysis and thankfully made some corrections so I am upgrading her stars from 1 to 2. Ms. Rawlinson recently posted a severely flawed analysis of my recent Oregon Supreme Court win in the case Lowell v. Wright/Artistic Piano 369 Or 806. In it, Matthew Wright, a clinically diagnosed sociopath and convicted childmolesterrapist, while working as the undisclosed manager of a close competitor's piano store, and using an alias, posted a Google review of a (made up) conversation with a (made up) dishonest salesman at Plaintiff's piano store in order to steer customers to his own business for personal financial gain. But there was no conversation, there was no dishonest salesman...yet those facts aren't important to Ms. Rawlinson, who instead makes it seem like "smells like grandma's attic" was the lynchpin defamatory statement, when that review statement was not even at issue at the Supreme Court. So, rather than providing readers with an accurate rendition of the facts, Ms. Rawlinson slants her presentation in order to promote her undisclosed agenda. I suppose if you are an insurance company footing the bill for the defense of sociopaths like Matthew Wright, having someone like Ms. Rawlinson on your payroll makes financial sense, but for a civilized society, it's detrimental. Another example: Ms. Rawlinson claims Mr. Wright wasn't working for Artistic Piano at the time the review was made, while leaving out that Wright was working in his own store on the same day that the visit took place and the review written. Ms. Rawlinson appears to be too comfortable changing or leaving out the facts in order to suit her false narrative. In addition, the reason why Artistic Piano never denied Wright was acting as an agent for it (which Rawlinson can't figure out) is because: 1. Artistic Piano was in on the hoax (remember Jussie Smollett?), 2. without Artistic Piano's insurance company funding his legal expenses, Wright would be tempted to cut a deal with the prosecution and tell the truth about Artistic Piano's involvement, and thus implicate Artistic Piano in the hoax (as the Osundairo brothers did with Smollett when their legal expenses weren't being covered by Smollett). This explains Artistic Piano's strategy to not dispute Wright's agency relationship with Artistic Piano, thus enabling his legal expenses to be covered, and the conspiracy perpetuated. Finally, in Rawlinson's eyes, Wright is just a good guy who had a legitimate "interest in helping his employer," and who inadvertently "may have taken some wrong steps here," rather that the greedy sociopath unethically seeking to take unfair advantage of others, he really is. She probably thinks Jussie Smollett is also a great guy, and would defend him too!!!
Jun 8th, 2022