Loretta Z.
1/5
[Updated after receiving a defamation threat from Alisa Williams]
I am revising this review because MsâŻWilliams threatened legal action over my original public post. While it is troubling that honest opinions can be met with defamation threats, I am exercising my right to share my direct experience, truthfully, respectfully, and without malice.
ContextâŻ: âŻLawyers are public facing professionals. If they want consistently positive reviews, their conduct should reflect that. I had not thought about MsâŻWilliams for years until a recent search for legal help showed her ranked as a âtop lawyer.â My experience was very different, so I believe the public deserves the full picture.
My experience: Several years ago I retained MsâŻWilliams for a sensitive matter. I arrived highly organized, with more than a decade of documentation. Although she seemed engaged at first, she later withdrew from my case with very little notice and, in my view, an unethical and very questionable cited justification on her part, leaving me exposed at a sensitive and critical time, I was also on legal aid back then and in a very vulnerable situation.
I subsequently learned that she had undisclosed meetings with opposing counsel (a young male lawyer). Based on my direct observations during the time she represented me, I perceived their tone and body languages to be overly familiar and professionally concerning. While I cannot confirm what was said, the lack of disclosure and the dynamic I witnessed erased my trust with her completely.
Wanting peace rather than protracted stress, I decided not to file a Law Society complaint despite what many people in my life at the time urged me to do and instead retained another lawyer, DeepaâŻDayal, who listened, respected my input, and acted with integrity. Together we prevailed in court four times over the next decade.
Why I am posting:âŻI feel ethically obligated to share this so that prospective clients can make informed decisions. In my opinion, MsâŻWilliams was dismissive, lacked transparency, and I felt she took advantage of my vulnerable situation and that she may suit clients who prefer a topâdown style. I also formed the impression she worked more comfortably with male clients; that perception affected my confidence in her representation. Others may, of course, have had positive experiences but this was mine.
On the legal threat:âŻHer defamation warning felt, to me, like an attempt to deter valid criticism. In my view, such intimidation tactics contribute to a culture where professionals use legal power to silence feedback rather than engage with it. That only emphasizes the importance of protecting public commentary.
Legal note: AntiâSLAPP (Courts of Justice Act,âŻs.âŻ137.1, Ontario)
Should any claim be filed over this review, I would bring an AntiâSLAPP motion to dismiss. Courts must consider:
*âŻIs the expression a matter of public interest?âŻYes.
*âŻDoes reputational harm outweigh the publicâs right to speak?âŻUnlikely.
*âŻDoes the claim show substantial merit?âŻHighly doubtful in light of the documented facts above.
This review reflects my lived experience. It is offered not out of malice, but out of a sense of duty to help others choose legal counsel wisely.