Corrections

Every review gate in our method exists because something went wrong without one.

This page records the instances where our judgment or our sequencing was mistaken, what it cost, and the change to the method that followed. It is the item on the Results page that a competitor would not publish.

A firm that has run engagements since 2018 and has nothing to record here is a firm that has not been reading its own work closely. Our method has five stages with a review gate at each one, and those gates were not designed in the abstract. Each was added after a matter where its absence cost something.

The standard for an entry on this page is a specific misjudgment, what it cost, and the change that followed. Not a general admission that the work is difficult, and not a reputation-managed version of a mistake.

The log

We trusted expertise without verifying enough of what sat beneath it.

We had controls. We reviewed work. We asked more questions than most clients know to ask. It was still not enough.

We relied on people whose expertise and assurances we believed, and some took advantage of that trust. The mistake was ours. We accepted activity, confidence, and credentials as evidence that the work was sound. They were not.

That experience changed the method. Every claim is now checked against a dated baseline. Every external deliverable is independently reviewed. Activity is never reported as progress. No stage continues merely because money or time has already been spent.

Trust still matters. Verification is now part of the work.

Charles Zakarin, Founder

Why this log is short

Further entries are being drawn from the firm's own files, and each has to be compiled and cleared before it is published. Writing plausible ones would be faster and would breach the second item on our standard, which is that we fabricate nothing, for clients or on this site. An invented corrections log would be the most damaging thing on this website if anyone ever checked it.

So the log grows slowly, with the commitment stated and the gaps visible, rather than filled with something that reads well. If you are evaluating this firm and the log is still short when you read it, that is a fair thing to ask about in a first conversation.

Ask us about the ones that are not written down yet.

A first conversation is the right place to ask what this firm has got wrong and what changed as a result. We will answer it.

If your matter is in litigation, or likely to be, have your attorney contact us instead. Communications routed through counsel are treated differently, and that protection cannot be added afterwards. Why this matters