Catherine Lawson False Google Review About Glenn R. Reiser

The Lawson's completed their trio of false reviews about me and my firm on January 24, 2026, when Catherine Lawson posted the following lie on Google:

Cathy L

0 reviews • 0 photos

starstarstarstarstar 2 days ago New

I am a person with Down Syndrome and I felt our lawyer Glenn Reiser kept me out of the talks concerning our case. When I told him I wanted to testify he told me to “sit in the courtroom and look pretty”. Glenn was not nice to my mom and Glenn told her if we did not agree to the settlement he came up with he would walk out on us and not be our lawyer any more. This made my mother very upset that she cried. I was upset and disappointed too. Glenn is not a nice person at all. I am my own person and he did not listen to my advice. This is my own review. Thank you very much. Signed Catherine Lawson.

================================================================================

Catherine was in the courtroom on June 10, 2024 when the settlement terms were placed on the record and confirmed by her mother's and brother's testimony.  

In September 2024, the trial court entered an order enforcing the settlement.  At that time, the Lawson's were represented by their third attorney.  

Undeterred by their failure to vacate the settlement in 2024, the Lawson's employed a new strategy in July 2025 when they filed a motion to vacate the settlment. This time, the Lawson's argued that we deliberately excluded Catherine from the settlement process even though she was in Court on June 10, 2024 when the settlment terms were placed on the record in the presence of the trial judge and both her mother and brother confirmed their acceptance, while also acknowledging their satisfaction with the quality of legal services that we provied.  The trial court rejected this frivolous motion to vacate the settlement.  An order denying their motion was entered in November 2025.

Still not satisfied, Catherine (or most likely her brother Raef Lawson) proceeded to post their third false Google review about me and my firm on January 24, 2026.

Here is my public Google response to Catherine's false review:

Glenn R. Reiser, Esq.

Owner

2 days ago

I reject this review as false, defamatory, and flatly contradicted by the public court record.

After multiple days of trial, the case was resolved through a settlement that was placed on the record in open court. Catherine was present in the courtroom for the settlement hearing, as were her other family members who were my clients. Catherine’s mother and brother expressly approved the settlement on the record and affirmatively acknowledged to the trial judge that they were satisfied with my firm’s legal services. Based on that record, the Court approved the settlement. The same public court file further reflects that after approving it in open court, this family later sought to vacate the very settlement they had approved—and those efforts were denied twice.

I unequivocally deny ever using demeaning language, excluding Catherine from the process, threatening to abandon representation, or mistreating any member of this family. Those accusations are baseless and directly inconsistent with statements made in open court and preserved in the Court’s public file.

The only negative Google reviews about me are a series of coordinated attacks by members of this same family, published only after they failed to unwind a settlement they themselves approved on the record. Anyone considering this review should also read the dozens of other client reviews here that reflect the truth about my representation, results, and reputation.

This blog post sets the record straight.   

Elizabeth Lawson False Google Review of Glenn R. Reiser

Just like her son, Raef Lawson, Elizabeth Lawson also testified in Court on June 10, 2024 that she was satisfied with the settlement agreement and the legal services provided by my law firm.  Click here to read the transcript.

 Q: Ms. Lawson, you had the opportunity to listen to the principle settlement terms that I've put on the record this morning.

A. Yes.

Q. And we had the opportunity before we came to court to both discuss those terms?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you are entering into this settlement agreement of your own free will?

A. Yes.

Q. Has anyone coerced you or pressured you into signing this, into agreeing to this settlement?

A. No.

Q. Okay. And you understand that in agreeing to the settlement that this resolves any and all claims that were asserted in this litigation?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And you realize once you accept the settlement, you understand it becomes a final and binding contractual agreement?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Okay. And you're satisfied with the terms of the settlement?

A. Yes.

Q. All right.  And, are you satisfied with the services that my firm has provided as your counsel?

A. Yes. 

Further, in response to direct questioning by the trial judge, Elizabeth Lawson again confirmed that she was satisfied with my services:

Q. Ms. Lawson, have you had enough time to discuss the terms of this resolution with Mr. Reiser?

* * *

Q. With Mr. Reiser, your attorney?

A. Oh, yes, yes. We did.

Q. Okay. And you are satisfied with his services, correct?  

A. Yes, I am. I am. 

Having just testified to the above, under oath, Elizabeth Lawson then caused the following false review to be posted on Google: 

---

Elizabeth Lawson

2 reviews • 0 photos

starstarstarstarstar Jul 24, 2024

Glenn Reiser from the firm of Shapiro, Croland, Reiser, Apfel & Di Iorio, LLP nosedived in the negotiation and handling of our case.

In our first consultation with Glenn and his brother Stuart promised they would build our case by listening to our concerns and follow our needs by letting us be “in the driver’s seat”. Well, it just came out that Stuart's motto from another review that was left for the firm two months ago follows the old adage "a bad settlement is better than a good lawsuit". The other plaintiff and I let them know from the beginning that in order for a fair settlement to be reached the path to be taken would be for us to go to trial and have an impartial judge make the decision. We knew this from knowing the defendant's mindset that mediation would be a waste of time. If we knew then that this was this attorney’s viewpoint, we would not have chosen them. Although it is true this may work for most cases it was not the way to go for us.

“A bad settlement is better than a good trial,” is the kind of thing a trial lawyer says to a client/plaintiff when recommending a settlement offer that is less than full compensation for the wrong (that is, 99.9% of settlements) when the wronged client balks at the settlement but the trial lawyer thinks it is, on balance, a (relatively) good deal. This certainly was a fitting mantra for them as a bad settlement is exactly what they got us.

As Abraham Lincoln noted "A good settlement is better than a good lawsuit" and when mediation didn’t work with our first attorney where the defendants stretched out the billing hours and refused to even come up with a counter offer, we knew for sure that a trial was the only way for us to get a fair deal. Reiser’s following the adage of a bad settlement is better may work when you are up against insurance companies but was not applicable to our case, considering the unusual mindset and untruthfulness of the defendants in our case.

Another subject of issue is that despite Glenn's high fees, his law firm is run very spartanly which looking back should have set off numerous red flags. For starters, Glenn doesn't have an assistant. So, everything that is done will be billed at his high rate. Glenn doesn't have DocuSign; he doesn't accept any form of electronic payment in which he has you mail a check to him every month. It was also very unsettlingly how he'd reach out asking if I mailed the payment in the tone of someone who was expecting that I would renege on the bill. He seemed to be always having his hand out. I wholeheartedly suspect he most likely consciously drove up billing hours wherever he could.

Glenn also failed to inform us that a legal malpractice case was filed against him and his firm back in April 2023. Although Mr. Reiser boasts that this case is frivolous and the client a nut job (then why was he your client?) the case, even though Glenn has tried to get it thrown out, is still pending so the courts still believe it has merit see; CASTRO v. REISER et al

Glenn also displayed incompetence at times by not answering and ignoring important questions we posed to him in our emails. We asked for copies of our case files which he agreed to send to us however, he never did.

During our second day of trial, the judge said everyone preferred being back in court in-person after the pandemic. Glenn jokingly responded to the judge he was getting tired standing during the questioning.

Glenn not only charges his high rate driving to court and back, but he charges his full rate waiting for court to begin. Not even the experts we had appearing in court did that.

In my humble opinion, Glenn's high fees aren't worth the subpar service he provides. I would seriously think twice before choosing this firm if you are looking to receive a good and fair settlement from your case.

I publicly responded as follows:

Glenn R. Reiser, Esq.

Owner

Jul 24, 2024

This entire review is a complete fabrication of the truth. First her son RAEF LAWSON writes a false review, duplicates the same false review under a burner account called Concerned Citizen, and now signs up his mother to a Google account so he can post the same false review for a third time. The mother (Elizabeth) doesn't even own a computer!

The case was a bitter family dispute and settled for a confidential amount after 4 intense days of trial and before the trial was to resume. The settlement amount was suggested by the client and was agreed to by the other side.

The judge scheduled a hearing to approve the settlement. The client attended the hearing and was given the opportunity to approve or disapprove of the settlement. Client approved the settlement after being questioned by the judge. Based on testimony from the client, the judge approved the settlement.

During the course of the settlement hearing, in response to specific questioning by the judge, the client confirmed that he was satisfied with my firm's legal services. However, in an about-face, by the time I got back to my office after a 1 1/2 hour drive back from the court, on the same day the settlement was approved, the client posted this review which is replete with false statements. The attorney-client privilege prohibits me from revealing all of the communications that occurred with the client that led to the settlement being agreed to in the first place.

Raef Lawson False Google Review of Glenn R. Reiser

In the midst of a 4-day trial involving a bitter family business dispute, my clients Raef Lawson and Elizabeth Lawson appeared in Court on June 10, 2024 and agreed to the terms of a settlement placed on the record in the presence of the trial judge.  Each of them also confirmed their satisfaction with the quality of legal services they received from our law firm . Included in this PDF file linked here is a copy of the transcript of the June 10, 2024 hearing.  Settlement Hearing Clients Agree to Settlement and Acknowledge Satisfaction with our Services  Note the following colloquy taken verbatim from the June 10, 2024 hearing transcript:

Q :  Okay.  And you are satisfied that the settlement represents a fair and equitable result?

A: Yes

Q. Okay. And are you satisfied with the services that my law firm has provided to you?'

A.  Yes.

But less than an hour after the hearing had concluded, Raef Lawson, in complete contradition of what he had just testified to in Court, wrote a false scathing one-star Google review about me and my firm.  Raef Lawson further caused the same negative review to be published by his mother, Elizabeth Lawson. 

Since Raef Lawson refuses to withdraw his false review, I am compelled to set the record straight.  On two separate occasions, Raef Lawson, Elizabeth Lawson, and Catherine Lawson (Raef's sister) then petitioned the trial Court to vacate the settlement.  The Court rejected both applications.  (The Lawsons previously caused the same June 10, 2024 settlement transcript to be posted on the Court's website as an exhibit to their own motion papers asking the Court to vacte the settlement).

Here is the false Raef Lawson review published under an abbreviated name "Ray Lawson."  Previously, Mr. Lawson caused a duplicate review to be posted on a burner account that he created under the name of "Concerned Citizen".   My public reply on Google follows. 

Edited a year ago

I had a really bad experience with Glenn Reiser's representation. When we met with him and his brother, they said we'd always be in the driver's seat. But instead of driving, it ultimately seemed closer to getting run over. We feIt we got off to a promising start for the first few months, but after that, the momentum took a nosedive and it seemed like we barely had any input at all. In all fairness, when he took our case over we did have a judge who by his own words was showing partiality to the other side. But after pointing that out, he didn't do anything about it. So we kept being hit with bad rulings. At the time we were told there was nothing we could do about it. Just wait for the appeal. He doesn't really seem to know too much about land value outside of his area either with particular circumstances and he made an awful assessment of one of our experts, which turned out to be the opposite of what he said. Rather than aiming for the best possible scenario for situations that arose he seemed to be repeatedly proud that it wasn't the worst possible outcome. Then back in a pretrial conference call, the judge verbally approved me to testify virtually because I'm out-of-state but Glenn dragged his feet and never wrote the request that was agreed upon. I had assumed he did this but then 2 months later he forgot completely about it then gave me a hard time that I didn't want to testify in person when I had already received permission to do it virtually. But because he delayed, it cost me more having to come out in person when it was never necessary in the first place. When driving to court, it appears he charges his actual hourly rate for legal work and not just mileage reimbursement which adds up if the court is in a different county. Mileage/gas and toll reimbursement is actually added on top of this. There was also wasted time and money with him. One smaller example is his firm ordered video depositions then they forgot they ordered them and they wanted to use the written transcripts instead which were much cheaper and we could've just gone with originally. Again a small example, but it gives you an idea. He appeared to triangulate the plaintiffs he was representing in our case as well. Whenever he did something questionable, in my observation he'd do it verbally to one of the plaintiffs. He lied to me about something another plaintiff said which made us make a decision, based on the false information he provided, which boxed us in and we never really recovered from it. Then when I found out what happened from the other plaintiff and called him out on it he didn't tell the truth about what happened. When I wanted to switch attorneys, I asked for the files of our case. When he responded if digital worked. I replied yes, then he never sent them over. After that it was too late in the case to switch to a better one. Ironically, he threatened to leave the case close to the last minute when I disagreed with him on some issues because I felt it wasn't being honest. A lot of the communication with him felt like a manipulation and that I wasn't being told the information directly. In fact, he was so completely wrong some times that by doing the opposite of what he said was the better move. At one point, he admitted, "you were right," to one of the other plaintiffs. However, I wanted my attorney to be right. That's what we hired him for and it made me lose all faith. I personally found him to be dishonest. And while he definitely is an amazing and expertly skilled trial attorney, he seemed awful at a lot of other aspects of being a lawyer. The worst being negotiating in my and the other main plaintiff's opinion. He felt very draining to be around and deal with. A case that spans over a long period of time is difficult enough but dealing with him just seemed like it added to the burden.

Response from the owner Edited a year ago

This entire review is a complete fabrication of the truth. The case was a bitter family dispute and settled for a confidential amount after 4 intense days of trial and before the trial was to resume. The settlement amount was suggested by the client and was agreed to by the other side. The judge scheduled a hearing to approve the settlement. The client attended the hearing and was given the opportunity to approve or disapprove of the settlement. Client approved the settlement after being questioned by the judge. Based on testimony from the client, the judge approved the settlement. During the course of the settlement hearing, in response to specific questioning by the judge, the client confirmed that he was satisfied with my firm's legal services. However, in an about-face, by the time I got back to my office after a 1 1/2 hour drive back from the court, on the same day the settlement was approved, the client posted this review which is replete with false statements. The attorney-client privilege prohibits me from revealing all of the communications that occurred with the client that led to the settlement being agreed to in the first place. The other 44 5-star reviews and my impeccable reputation developed over 33 years speaks for itself.