Caldwell Mark

For residents of Phoenix, Arizona, seeking legal assistance with Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) claims, the office of Caldwell Mark is located at 1940 E Camelback Rd # 150. Situated in a commercial building on East Camelback Road, this location offers a local point of contact for individuals navigating the often complex process of applying for or appealing SSDI benefits. As a listing in the "Lawyers Near Me" category, Caldwell Mark aims to provide accessible legal services to the Phoenix community.

Caldwell Mark can be reached by phone at (602) 277-1745 or via the same mobile number, +1 602-277-1745. These direct contact lines allow prospective clients to inquire about the firm's services and schedule consultations to discuss their potential SSDI claims. The availability of a local phone number underscores their presence within the Phoenix area.

Based on the available online reviews, Caldwell Mark appears to have experience in handling Social Security Disability Insurance cases. One review from 2009 expresses immense satisfaction with the services provided by attorney Mark A. Caldwell and his staff. The reviewer recounts applying for SSDI benefits and hiring the firm as a precautionary measure based on advice to expect an initial denial. Contrary to this expectation, the reviewer received a call shortly after from Mr. Ober and his assistant, stating that their benefits had been approved. The reviewer emphasizes the speed of the approval process, noting that receiving the first payment from the Social Security Administration took longer than winning the case itself. As a result of this positive outcome, the reviewer wholeheartedly recommends the firm to anyone needing to file for SSDI benefits.

However, a more recent review presents a contrasting experience, highlighting concerns about communication and case management. This reviewer notes that Caldwell Mark did successfully get their case scheduled for another hearing, which is acknowledged as a positive aspect. However, the reviewer strongly advises against contacting Caldwell Mark unless he initiates the contact. The reviewer recounts an instance of accidentally contacting him and another instance of reaching out because they could not get in touch with an attorney (chosen by Mark) who was supposed to handle their hearing. In both instances, the reviewer felt that Mark seemed annoyed by the contact.

Further complicating the situation, the hearing attorney, when finally reached, instructed the reviewer to obtain their exhibit file from Mark. When the reviewer expressed reluctance to contact Mark due to his previous demeanor, the hearing attorney stated that Mark had not indicated a desire to avoid contact and that he "continues to be (my) attorney for federal claim until hearing is completed." Following this, the reviewer emailed Mark requesting the exhibit file and explicitly stating that "that is all I need" to respect his apparent wish for no further communication.

Mark's response, copying another individual, provided instructions to send the file and stated, "As she has indicated in her last (there was only one line) sentence, there is no need for further communications." The reviewer clarified that they had not stated there was no need for further communication, only that they currently needed the file, and emphasized their expectation of future communication regarding their case, especially given the hearing attorney's statement about Mark's continued involvement. Mark's subsequent response denied any ongoing involvement and stated that he would not respond to further emails from the reviewer.

This detailed account raises several concerns about communication practices and case management. The reviewer expresses confusion about the roles and responsibilities of the attorneys involved and feels that things were not communicated or explained clearly. They highlight the frustration of hiring an attorney for their legal expertise but still being expected to understand complex legal procedures without adequate guidance. Despite acknowledging the positive step of getting the case scheduled for another hearing, the overall experience was marred by perceived communication issues and a sense of being dismissed.

The environment of Caldwell Mark's office, located on East Camelback Road, is likely a professional setting where client consultations and case preparation take place. However, the contrasting reviews suggest that the client experience can vary significantly, particularly concerning communication and the level of ongoing support provided.

A key feature highlighted by the positive review is the firm's apparent efficiency and success in SSDI applications, at least in the past. The more recent review, however, suggests potential shortcomings in client communication and coordination between attorneys within the firm or referred by the firm. For individuals with SSDI cases that require ongoing management and communication, these are critical factors to consider.

There is no explicit promotional information available. However, the positive testimonial from 2009 could be seen as an indication of past success in SSDI cases. The more recent review serves as a cautionary note regarding potential communication challenges.

For local users in Phoenix seeking assistance with SSDI claims, Caldwell Mark represents a "Lawyers Near Me" option with a history of at least one very successful outcome. However, potential clients should be aware of the more recent feedback detailing difficulties in communication and coordination. It would be prudent to inquire specifically about the firm's communication protocols, the roles of different attorneys who might be involved in a case, and the level of direct attorney contact they can expect.

Prospective clients might consider requesting references or seeking additional reviews to gain a broader understanding of the firm's current practices. A thorough initial consultation where communication expectations are clearly discussed could also be beneficial in determining if Caldwell Mark is the right fit for their SSDI legal needs. The decision should be based on a careful consideration of both the positive historical outcome and the more recent concerns raised about client communication and case handling.

In conclusion, Caldwell Mark in Phoenix, AZ, offers legal services for Social Security Disability Insurance claims. While a past client reported a remarkably swift and successful outcome, a more recent review highlights significant issues with communication and case management. Local users considering Caldwell Mark should weigh these contrasting experiences and conduct thorough due diligence, particularly focusing on understanding the firm's current communication practices and client support protocols, before making a decision about their legal representation.