PKWA Law Reviews

Name: PKWA Law
Rating: 4.86

4.9 Rating 316 Reviews

97 %

of reviewers recommend PKWA Law

4.9

Based on 316 reviews

Customer Service
Communication Channels	Email

Visit Website

Phone:

6397 6100

Email:

mail@pkwalaw.com

Location:

480 Lorong 6 Toa Payoh, #16-00, HDB Hub East Wing
310480

Write Your review

Tell us how PKWA Law made you happy

Minimum 10 characters

Would you like to add a photos or videos?

Strengthen your review by uploading photos & videos.

Drag files here or browse

(Supported files: jpg, png, mpeg, ogg, mp4 & webm)

What's your name?

Leave this blank if you'd like to publish your review anonymously.

(Optional)

Whats your email?

We need your email address to verify that your review is genuine

Please note that we may share your email with the company to verify your order.

Anonymous

Anonymous // 01/01/2019

Filter: Rated 2 None 5 Stars 4 Stars 3 Stars 2 Stars 1 Stars Helpful

“I engaged PKWA to assist with a prenuptial agreement ahead of my ROM. While the matter was ultimately completed, the overall experience required significantly more follow-up and project management from me than I expected from a professional legal engagement. The main issues throughout were: • Poor responsiveness • Repeated need for chasing • Failure to answer questions fully • Lack of proactive management despite a fixed wedding deadline • Client having to drive the process These observations are supported by documented email correspondence. If anyone would like further details, I am happy to share them. There were multiple occasions where emails went unanswered for several days, requiring repeated follow-ups before a response was received. For example, after making payment, I sent an email on 22 April containing several questions needed to commence drafting. I received no acknowledgement or holding response and had to send reminders before eventually calling the firm multiple times to obtain a reply. Even then, only some of my questions were addressed. The most concerning aspect of the engagement was the handling of the execution arrangements. My ROM date was fixed and known from the outset. My fiancée would only be in Singapore from 1 June onwards, and I therefore began requesting confirmation of the execution date well in advance. Timeline: • 24 April – First request for execution on 2 June. • 19 May – Followed up as no response had been received. • 24 May – Raised the question again as it remained unanswered. By this stage, the requested signing date was only five business days away. • 26 May – Received confirmation of a 2 June, 12pm appointment. • 27 May – I confirmed acceptance of the proposed slot. • 29 May – I was informed that the previously confirmed slot was no longer available and needed to be moved to 2.45pm due to the Commissioner's availability. As the revised timing conflicted with existing family arrangements and bookings, I ultimately had to reorganise my plans to accommodate the change. Final confirmation of the execution arrangements was only received on 2 June, the day of signing and one day before my ROM. Given that the wedding date had been known throughout the engagement and that I had been seeking confirmation for over a month, I felt the matter lacked proactive timeline management and created avoidable uncertainty. A second recurring issue was that questions raised in emails were often only partially answered. Responses would address one point while overlooking others, resulting in additional rounds of correspondence simply to obtain complete answers. One aspect of the engagement that also surprised me was the level of strategic guidance provided. As a client seeking a prenuptial agreement tailored to investment assets, rental income, future family planning and capital preservation objectives, I had expected more proactive advice on how the agreement could be structured around my circumstances. In practice, many of the substantive revisions ultimately incorporated into the draft were raised by me rather than suggested proactively by the firm. While the firm was generally willing to incorporate requested changes, the process felt more reactive than advisory in nature. Clients seeking a straightforward template-style agreement at a competitive price point may find this sufficient. However, clients seeking more bespoke strategic guidance may wish to clarify the scope of advice they can expect at the outset. To be fair, the firm did ultimately complete the agreement before the wedding. My dissatisfaction is therefore not with the fact that the work was completed, but with the responsiveness, level of guidance and overall client management throughout the engagement. I was also grateful for the opportunity to discuss my concerns with the Head of Family Law after escalating the matter. He listened to my feedback and took the concerns seriously. That conversation improved my impression of the firm and is the reason I have chosen to leave a two-star rather than one-star review. Overall, based on my experience, I would hesitate to recommend the firm for time-sensitive matters where proactive communication, project management and strategic guidance are important.”

Helpful Report

Posted 6 days ago

“No cool call or. WhatsApp Jenny or Terrace both no reply. Poor service n always make mistakes on calculations What happening”

Helpful Report

Posted 4 years ago

“Receptionist was very busy and unable to fix me an appointment earlier.”

Helpful Report

Posted 5 years ago

PKWA Law is rated 4.9 based on 316 reviews