Kafoury & McDougal

Kafoury & McDougal
  • Firm Size 3
  • Peer Reviews
    4.3/5.0 (2)
    Client Reviews
    < 50% Recommended (1)
  • Profile Visibility [ i ]
  • Update your Profile

Areas of Practice (20)

Specific Practice Area and Industry Group Details across multiple offices:

  • Car Accidents
  • Motorcycle Accidents
  • Trucking Accidents
  • Pedestrian Accidents
  • Dangerous Conditions
  • Construction Accidents & Job Site Injuries
  • Wrongful Death
  • Defective Product Injuries
  • Medical Malpractice
  • Employment Law
  • Public Accommodations
  • Civil Rights
  • False Arrest
  • Police Brutality / Excessive Force
  • Assault & Battery
  • Elder Abuse
  • Sex Abuse
  • Consumer Protection- UTPA
  • Timber Trespass
  • Uninsured & Underinsured Motorists- UM/UIM

Peer Reviews

Client Reviews

  • 1.0/5.0 (1 review)
  • Communication

    1.0/5.0
  • Responsiveness

    1.0/5.0
  • Quality of Service

    1.0/5.0
  • Value for Money

    1.0/5.0
  • No Recommendations   1.0/5.0 Review for Kafoury & McDougal on 06/25/15 in Medical Malpractice.

    Mark McDougal the best bad example of a litigator today from a rather poor lot. The robotization of the legal profession was not delayed by technological issues, but moved ahead as the intellect of practitioners atrophied after professionalism was r... Read more

    Read more

    Mark McDougal the best bad example of a litigator today from a rather poor lot. The robotization of the legal profession was not delayed by technological issues, but moved ahead as the intellect of practitioners atrophied after professionalism was replaced with some monkey see so monkey do methodology similar to navigating a phone tree.
    Which is why I am writing. Mark McDougal made a logical error, could not see the trees while looking at the forest, while summarizing my case after first refusing my written summary before our conversation which otherwise could have prevented his error.
    More specifically, I do not want to see any one else, requiring a litigator, to endure the insolent display of arrogance by Mark McDougal masquerading as a professional. His analysis has no meaning as he had first refused to review, rather, hurrying to pigeon hole first and only. Mark McDougal’s programmers, guilty of errors and omissions, failed to code in a recalculate loop for situations requiring the incorporation of new information.
    Mark McDougal may wish to deny that he has been roboticized, but he should, rather, look in the mirror and do something about the problem.
    As for me, I will spend my day, in part, telling lawyer jokes. Read less

    Read less
Disclaimer