Leyendecker & Lemire, LLC

How would you rate the firm's technical/legal expertise?:
Below expectations

Which best describes your experience with the firm's team?:
Disorganized or reactive

Recommend to Others?: No

What was the single best thing about working with them-and what's one area they could improve?:
After a missed consultation 7 weeks prior to their online response and direct email, the firm went out of their way to highlight that their initial consultations are free, implying these appointments are of minimal importance. I never requested a complimentary consultation—in fact, the law firm I ultimately chose for my trademark enforcement matter charged appropriately for two hours of their time, reflecting a more professional approach to a consultation on significant matters.

Additionally, after asking me to remove my fact-based review, the firm's owner, Kurt Leyendecker, retaliated by posting a one-star review of my referral-only business. His review contained no supporting details and could not be based on actual client experience. Notably, Kurt has a pattern of leaving negative reviews for businesses such as Sportsman's Warehouse and an eye doctor, while expressing positive feedback for entities like the Elbert Historical Society, Milk Tea People, Cosmos Magic Theater, Franktown Festival of Lights, and Bin Y Tu.

Overall, Kurt's attempt to have a factual, negative review removed months later—followed by a retaliatory, disqualified review against his own potential clients—represents a deeply disappointing and unprofessional course of action that all business owners should actively avoid. Given that intellectual property matters primarily concern business owners, it is difficult to see how this firm could be a suitable or reliable choice for such clients, given the failures I experienced.

Initially, I scheduled a consultation with Mr. Lemire to discuss trademark enforcement litigation. This is a complex matter involving significant legal fees estimated between $75,000 and $150,000. Mr. Lemire personally arranged the time for our call, yet he completely failed to attend. Following his absence, he provided no immediate explanation, no apology, and no attempt to reschedule, that is for 7 weeks following a posted negative review.

Two months after the missed appointment, Mr. Lemire responded to the online review and Kurt Leyendecker contacted me directly. However, he reached out solely to ask me to remove my initial negative review stating, "As a business owner you are no doubt aware how negative reviews can have a sizable impact and I humbly ask if you would be willing to remove the one star review."

This sequence of events highlights several critical issues for anyone considering this firm for legal representation:

Unreliability: Failing to attend a self-scheduled meeting demonstrates a profound lack of respect for a prospective client's time.

Disorganization: Being unable to reallocate other resources due to them "maintaining a lean shop" as Kurt indicated limits their ability to meet strict legal deadlines.

Poor Communication: Ignoring a missed meeting for two months is unacceptable in any professional setting.

Misplaced Priorities: Reaching out only to protect the firm's online reputation, rather than addressing the core service failure, shows a concerning lack of accountability.

If a firm exhibits this level of negligence during the intake process for a high-stakes, high-value case, it raises severe doubts about their ability to manage complex litigation and handle lesser matters. Entrusting significant legal issues requires a foundation of trust and communication. Based on this experience, I strongly advise prospective clients to seek legal representation from a firm that demonstrates basic reliability and professional commitment. These folks clearly fail that benchmark in all facets.

Current or former Client?: Former Client

Last Year at Client: 2025