HA
Hildebrand Attorneys
Unclaimed Business
HA
Hildebrand Attorneys
Unclaimed Business
2 Reviews (last 12 months)
Does not respond to reviews
Performance(last 12 months):
TrustIndex
0
Ranking
#10
in Business & Legal Services
NPS Score
0
Recommended: Unlikely
Review Distribution
1|2 Reviews
Jun '25 - May '26
5(0%)
4(0%)
3(0%)
2(0%)
1(100%)
5(0%)
4(0%)
3(0%)
2(0%)
1(100%)
Frequently Asked Questions About Hildebrand Attorneys
Hildebrand Attorneys has a TrustIndex of 0 out of 10 on Hellopeter, based on 2 reviews in the last 12 months. Hellopeter has tracked Hildebrand Attorneys across 5 total reviews. How is the TrustIndex calculated? →
Recent reviews (2)
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Used this business recently? Share your experience to help others decide.
Share Your ExperienceTS
Thomas S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
4 Dec 2025, 06:22
Attorneys Fail to Return File
On 24 October 2025, Hildebrand Attorneys terminated their client (myself)—improperly in my view. My offending words appear below.* I gave Hildebrand 7 days then in which to return my file to my postal address. It stands to reason that a client needs their file in going forward. Now we are 40+ days since I asked for its return—and this precisely was my original problem with Hildebrand. They are wasting time. Further, the file should include information as to whether a fact-finding report was delivered. Specifically, Candidate Legal Practitioner Niso Sithole reported that he had sought to deliver it via WhatsApp. Whether it was delivered or not should be there in the file. Since this concerns a missing R2.3 million, I should have that response. * My terminal words: “Hildebrand has now taken 112 days to deliver a fact-finding report to the intended recipients—after that report was finalised. I wrote that, after 110 days, I would report Hildebrand to authorities for negligence.”
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)TS
Thomas S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
4 Dec 2025, 06:22
Attorneys Fail to Return File
On 24 October 2025, Hildebrand Attorneys terminated their client (myself)—improperly in my view. My offending words appear below.* I gave Hildebrand 7 days then in which to return my file to my postal address. It stands to reason that a client needs their file in going forward. Now we are 40+ days since I asked for its return—and this precisely was my original problem with Hildebrand. They are wasting time. Further, the file should include information as to whether a fact-finding report was delivered. Specifically, Candidate Legal Practitioner Niso Sithole reported that he had sought to deliver it via WhatsApp. Whether it was delivered or not should be there in the file. Since this concerns a missing R2.3 million, I should have that response. * My terminal words: “Hildebrand has now taken 112 days to deliver a fact-finding report to the intended recipients—after that report was finalised. I wrote that, after 110 days, I would report Hildebrand to authorities for negligence.”
0
Replies (0)TS
Thomas S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
24 Oct 2025, 18:33
High-Handed Attorneys
I approached Hildebrand Attorneys to write up an independent fact-finding report. They established that, inter alia, I was owed R2.3 million by my past employer, a Church. However, this report was more than 150 days in the making—and this had me worried. The standard is said to be up to 30 days, for a complicated report, including delivery to recipients. Then, after completion of the report, Hildebrand took well over 100 days to (not) deliver the report to recipients. And from start to finish, Hildebrand broke clearly agreed time-lines. I said to them that this had run on “abnormally” long, and I would lodge a complaint. At this, Hildebrand terminated my mandate. However, according to legal and moral guidelines, this apparently is “invalid” behaviour on their part. In fact, Hildebrand should rightly have taken their ill-disciplined employees to task—not turned on the client. In the end, there was no courtesy, no kindness, no humility, no sympathy with my near-endless patience, but an irate and accusatory lawyer Jan Hildebrand who appeared to lose his composure at 00:27 am and terminate me. He accused me of ************, too—which would be an offence. I sought an opinion on this, on the basis of our full correspondence. The answer was no, not at all. No ************. He was making it up. Further, artificial intelligence judges, for what it is worth, that “your response (to Hildebrand) was appropriate", throughout. I have said to Hildebrand: let us re-set, and try again. Among other things, it is no small matter to drop an issue of R2.3 million, possibly within days of wrapping it up. A little kindness, a little patience, would surely have been warranted. Hildebrand's own advertising states: "We are proud to serve the German community, offering personalized legal assistance with a warm and welcoming approach. Our clients’ needs and interests are at the forefront of our practice, and we strive to create lasting relationships built on trust and understanding." This does not match my own experience. “And now, Lord, for what do I wait? My hope is for you. From all my transgressions deliver me.” Psalm 39:7-8.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)TS
Thomas S
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
24 Oct 2025, 18:33
High-Handed Attorneys
I approached Hildebrand Attorneys to write up an independent fact-finding report. They established that, inter alia, I was owed R2.3 million by my past employer, a Church. However, this report was more than 150 days in the making—and this had me worried. The standard is said to be up to 30 days, for a complicated report, including delivery to recipients. Then, after completion of the report, Hildebrand took well over 100 days to (not) deliver the report to recipients. And from start to finish, Hildebrand broke clearly agreed time-lines. I said to them that this had run on “abnormally” long, and I would lodge a complaint. At this, Hildebrand terminated my mandate. However, according to legal and moral guidelines, this apparently is “invalid” behaviour on their part. In fact, Hildebrand should rightly have taken their ill-disciplined employees to task—not turned on the client. In the end, there was no courtesy, no kindness, no humility, no sympathy with my near-endless patience, but an irate and accusatory lawyer Jan Hildebrand who appeared to lose his composure at 00:27 am and terminate me. He accused me of ************, too—which would be an offence. I sought an opinion on this, on the basis of our full correspondence. The answer was no, not at all. No ************. He was making it up. Further, artificial intelligence judges, for what it is worth, that “your response (to Hildebrand) was appropriate", throughout. I have said to Hildebrand: let us re-set, and try again. Among other things, it is no small matter to drop an issue of R2.3 million, possibly within days of wrapping it up. A little kindness, a little patience, would surely have been warranted. Hildebrand's own advertising states: "We are proud to serve the German community, offering personalized legal assistance with a warm and welcoming approach. Our clients’ needs and interests are at the forefront of our practice, and we strive to create lasting relationships built on trust and understanding." This does not match my own experience. “And now, Lord, for what do I wait? My hope is for you. From all my transgressions deliver me.” Psalm 39:7-8.
0
Replies (0)DS
SC
Shani C
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
5 May 2020, 10:25
Attorneys engaging in fraudulent behaviour on behalf of their clients.
Jan Hildebrandt attorneys took over the management of our lease, which had already ended when they deemed that Rose Eedes had failed to do a satisfactory job of managing the property. They are refuse to return our deposit and instead provided a fraudulent invoice alleging damage done to the property. As it turns out this "invoice" was provided prior to our even moving into the property. Rose Eedes made absolutely no effort to secure a tenant. The main house stood empty from February 2019 until we moved out, with only 1 person coming to view the property during that time. As previously stated the damage was pre-existing when we moved in, the repair invoice may reflect that work was done but the state of the property proves otherwise. No incoming inspection was performed and the outgoing inspection was done without us being there, as such you have no baseline on which to measure what was our “alleged” damage in this scenario. I have attached photos of what the property looked like when we moved in. If you look at the outgoing inspection you will see that nearly every wall was marked as MOULDY, we reported this more times than I care to think about and it was never taken seriously. It reflects poorly on the owner and the agent, that they would allow people to live in these conditions. I have yet to see quantifiable evidence that any of the alleged damage was caused by us and I have stated again and again what the issue with the backyard was and the lack of access to municipal bins due to incompetence on the side of Rose Eedes. You merely reiterating what you deem to be “facts”, which I have disproven time and time again does not strengthen your case or make it valid.
Helpful (0)
|Replies (0)SC
Shani C
1 reviews | Active since Jan 2020
5 May 2020, 10:25
Attorneys engaging in fraudulent behaviour on behalf of their clients.
Jan Hildebrandt attorneys took over the management of our lease, which had already ended when they deemed that Rose Eedes had failed to do a satisfactory job of managing the property. They are refuse to return our deposit and instead provided a fraudulent invoice alleging damage done to the property. As it turns out this "invoice" was provided prior to our even moving into the property. Rose Eedes made absolutely no effort to secure a tenant. The main house stood empty from February 2019 until we moved out, with only 1 person coming to view the property during that time. As previously stated the damage was pre-existing when we moved in, the repair invoice may reflect that work was done but the state of the property proves otherwise. No incoming inspection was performed and the outgoing inspection was done without us being there, as such you have no baseline on which to measure what was our “alleged” damage in this scenario. I have attached photos of what the property looked like when we moved in. If you look at the outgoing inspection you will see that nearly every wall was marked as MOULDY, we reported this more times than I care to think about and it was never taken seriously. It reflects poorly on the owner and the agent, that they would allow people to live in these conditions. I have yet to see quantifiable evidence that any of the alleged damage was caused by us and I have stated again and again what the issue with the backyard was and the lack of access to municipal bins due to incompetence on the side of Rose Eedes. You merely reiterating what you deem to be “facts”, which I have disproven time and time again does not strengthen your case or make it valid.
0
Replies (0)HC