Collaborative Law, Pauline Tesler, Ethics, Ron Romines, Michael Lowy, Steve Popell,Collaborative Law

NOW AVAILABLE for KINDLE and iPhone.........


Divorce Story.....The behind the scenes journey into Palo Alto divorce lawyer corruption, interviews with a judge's friends, interviews with Silicon Valley moms become homeless, direct quotes from lawyers who say, "Fraud is ok" and then defraud the court. Find out what dirty divorce tricks Palo Alto attorney Jeffrey Kaufman knows and how he used them. Watch a case go to the Court of Appeals because opposing counsel got his feelings hurt. Find out what Michael Lowy and Ron Romines did that should get them disbarred. Revised edition, names names! This book is much more than my story, it is applicable to divorces everywhere. This book does more than tell dirty divorce secrets, it asks........ "WHY?" Also available for other smartphones and PC's on MOBIPOCKET

                                                                                        WHAT is The RABBIT HOLE of COLLABORATIVE LAW?

                                                                                                              Is Collaborative a Legal Scam?


collaborative law Ron Romines Michael Lowy David Weinberg Jeff Kaufman DumbBlonde A Collaborative Story	Collaborative in theory sounds good. Like a Hallmark card in action. A sweet divorce. Remain friends. Pop the bubbly and sing "This Land Is Your Land". Lots of support people to do your thinking for you. Like exporting democracy so all can be free. But it ends up just as much a quagmire as George Bush and Iraq because complex emotions and problems can't be solved with a power imbalance in a method set up by attorneys for their benefit. See Pauline Tesler, collaborative law's own marketing guru. IRS fraud, false returns, verbal abuse, hidden assets, trust fraud, projection of blame, ignoring client communications..we had it all and it was not allowed to come to the table. There was no goal, only process. "Ann, let the process work" I did and this is the result: from November 8, 2004 through August 31, 2006 nothing was accomplished for $55,000. If you still think collaborative law is less expensive than litigation, think again. This is the cost of the process AFTER a trial and an appeal. Where's The Judgment Money? Where's the Trust Fund? Child Support Used to Shop at Nordstroms! The Collaborative Myth: "With collaborative practice, the clients are in control, not some judge or the lawyers," (Steven) Popell said. "The husband and wife are making the decisions at every stage.". If Mr Popell were to look at the communications between myself and Michael Lowy, my collaborative law attorney, he would see this simply doesn't translate into practice. One of Michael Lowy's clients communicated with me for quite a while about her sessions, and told me of her despair and deep unhappiness. Apparently everyone in the group discussed THEIR agenda and THEIR perceptions of what the issues and she was left out. If she brought up issues, she was told by the collaborative counterpart, "Oh, we'll get back to that." And they never did. Women are not always used to speaking up. Power imbalance is a huge issue in collaborative law. She had little or no time to discuss issues with Mike beforehand, and when she tried in the meetings, she was accused of changing the subject. She quit collaborative. In another case, this one with Pauline Tesler, the client was so enraged with the manipulations, she went to fee arbitration. Clients in control? Mr Popell, you need more of the HP way: get out and talk to people. I'm hard pressed to explain why Mike and Ron wouldn't pay attention to anything but helping Jim buy a house. The question of the Trust seemed to be particularly hard for them to understand. Eventually Mike read it and sent the group the excerpts regarding how to use it for child support. Since Jim had a motion to reduce child support on the table along with half a million never disclosed which could have been used for support, and since I was forced to borrow for living expenses, it should have been a slam dunk to put 2 and 2 together and see that child support should have been increased. For two years I asked for an accounting of the Trust. Ron and Mike looked bored, and ignored the request, even when I told them Jim created the trust 7 days after Findings and Orders after trial and called me to say: I am making myself judgment proof from you and the IRS. I tried to explain the badges of fraud, but they seemed indifferent, at times indignant that I should even know what they are. It's a sorry state of affairs that fraud can be swept under the table so easily in any situation, but when it happens in the collaborative process, marketed as divorce lite, it is especially sad. The law is being twisted and ignored to make some attorneys feel like they haven't wasted their lives in long hours of adversarial litigation. This is their problem. Making it ours is wrong. See a therapist or coach. Or quit. But don't charge us $400 or $500 an hour for your touchy feely Pauline Tesler Jungian archetype Kumbaya moment. The rest of this page was written to memorialize some of the things that happened in my post trial, post appeal collaborative law process with Ron Romines and Michael Lowy.

RON QUITS AT THE WRONG TIME

The ethics of Ron Romines quitting and terminating the
relationship is in question. By quitting he forced
us out of collaborative, abandoning both of us. Where
was the duty to his client? He ignored it. Where was
the promise of mutual problem solving? Gone.

According to Promise and Peril of Collaborative Law:

"It is hard to assess definitively
whether CL practice complies
with lawyers’ rules of professional
conduct. CL implicates rules governing
competence, diligence, zealous
advocacy, limiting the scope of
representation, representation of
multiple clients, conflicts of interest,
confidentiality, client’s right to settle,
withdrawal, prospective waivers of liability
and joint advertising.9 "

HITTING THE WALL IN COLLABORATIVE LAW~

HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE TO BE UNHEARD?

Collaborative promised a lot and gave me nothing.

Some of the reasons why:

. It took almost a year to get a meeting scheduled. (how do you problem solve when you don't meet?)

. Michael Lowy would go months without answering my emails. (how do you problem solve when you don't talk?)

. Ron Romines didn't read the appeal until 6 months into the collaborative process. (how do you problem solve
when you don't know what the problem is?)

. Michael asked me to his office to discuss support. We brought the number to a meeting. It was never discussed
again. He was paid $700.00 for that meeting. I am without sufficient funds for living. (how do you problem solve
when no one sees the problem?)

IMPACT

I called the State Bar and told them about the answers I was getting from Ron and Mike when I asked
for a meeting over a period of about six months. They called them "non meaningful responses."

This process has been horrific, tortuous, stressful and compellingly eye opening.
Collaborative law is a made up process (called a container), with a made up language,
and borders on the abusive. The rush to settlement harms the one with less power.
This imbalance of power is made worse when dealing with a serial bully. Ethics laws
can be ignored by saying they do not apply because this is a "process." In no other
legal arena would an attorney abandon his client as Ron Romines did when he quit.

In time, there will be malpractice suits against collaborative attorneys.
Already Pauline Tesler has had several contentious partings with very unhappy
clients who have lost a lot of money at her doorstep with no resolution.

I am left with nothing, and huge legal battles in front of me. If I had thought I would be
a victim of two attorneys charging $350.00 per hour to ruin me, I would have looked at
further litigation as a panacea. The time I have spent on this is enormous and translates
into huge economic and emotional losses for me.

RESULTS

The results of two years of collaborative law in almost 9 years of divorcing:

. Jim bought a house with my money, I became homeless. The irony is not lost on me.
. Hidden assets remain hidden
. My financial problems increased
. Jim has conned 2 more attorneys in a process that supports the con.
. The legal issues I have to deal with increased
. Obstructionism and delay have been taken to new heights (Jim was sanctioned $10K for this once)
. I am without financial help promised me and am financially marginalized
. Jim has paid Ron Romines and Michael Lowy est $60,000 plus
. The judgment I won at trial and on appeal is unpaid
. no health insurance and multiple health issues

PICK YOUR ETHICS, CHOOSE WHICH GUIDELINE TO FOLLOW

Ron Romines quit as Jim's attorney. He cited the "process" as the reason, but blamed me for
wanting to be self represented. (notice my rights being 'languaged away and the blame shifting)

Ron wrote to me: "I do not view this as me quitting the Collaborative process, but you making
it not possible to proceed with the Collaborative process because you have chosen not to
have counsel. This is a specific, voluntary process which we all signed onto at the outset.
None of the participants are required or should be expected to continue on
if one wants to change the rules of the process before a settlement is reached.
Jim retained me as his Collaborative counsel to represent him in a Collaborative Practice
settlement process. I can no longer do that." (Of course you can, Ron. You told me others have.)

Abandonment is unethical. The laws of the state of California say so. Ron had a conflict
of interest: choose the process or his client. A process won.

"..to change the rules of the process before a settlement is reached."
Ron Romines chose to do just that however. He ignored that for 2 years I have asked for
an accounting of the trust and other documents and they have never been produced.
He ignored fraud. Part of the "process" mandates the attorney of the client who
is obstructionist terminate his participation. It would have helped me long ago to move on
with this instead of being glued to a non responsive team. Ron's failure to adhere to the
guidelines cost me time and money. The damage is not inconsequential, it impaired my health as
well.

Ron never responded, he always remained in denial of Jim's continued manipulation
and wanted to expedite the process to save Jim money. He neglected to push Jim
to produce documents.

Had he really wanted to play the role of collaborative attorney, there were many
times he should have terminated his role.

This letter was cc:ed to Ron and Mike and is just one example of issues
never dealt with and a place Ron should have terminated his relationship with
his client.

June 6, 2006

Dear Jim,

Because I cannot get any cooperation from you or your attorney and
have no indication from either one of you that you are engaging in the
collaborative process with a four way meeting, I am forced to proceed
on my own with items that could have been dealt with in a four way
meeting. Four months of asking to meet, time consuming written
requests attempting to set dates, and providing you with agendas as
requested, have led to nothing, so I see no purpose in asking again
when obstructionism and delay have been shoved in my face.

In 2003, you sent the IRS a joint amended return without my
knowledge or signature. In place of my signature, you wrote "Not
available." You did not give me a copy and I was forced to see what
you had done by asking my attorney to request it from Jeffrey Kaufman.

Because I am publishing a revised edition of my book and incorporating
the facts proved in court including proof of additional income that
was entered into evidence above the double invoices, and which I have
attempted to discuss in collaborative to no avail, I have to protect
myself because one of those years was a joint return and it
underreports income as do the others. (They are of no concern to me
and I assume the IRS will deal with you directly on those.) I am only
concerned with the fraudulent amended joint return. I am asking if
you will sign the amended joint return since the income came from our
joint business and was entered into evidence and you made no rebuttal
to it at court.

I assume you understand my Respondent's Brief has all the details and
the Appendix has all the evidence. The Respondent's Brief I put online
2 years ago. It is still there. I also put your Brief online. It is
still there. I believe I have told you this over half a dozen times so
it should come as no surprise if you read my emails.

I am certain your appeals attorney, Brian Beckwith, must have told
you about my phone call to him when my attorney Michael Chapnik went
MIA and I had to file a missing persons report as my brief was due in
a week. I knew your appeal was a bad idea because your brief
admitted fraud thus exposing you to the IRS. I attempted to convince
Beckwith it would be in your best interest to drop the appeal because
of the exposure and that since your amended returns said, "bookkeeping
error" and the brief said fraud, this could be a problem.

I also saw your amended returns did not include the invoices you
shredded but which I have copies of and put in my Respondent's Brief
because they were entered into evidence at trial. Therefore putting
the appeal into play contradicts (dramatically) the income numbers on
the amended returns. However, you chose to go forth with the appeal
despite my warnings it could be harmful to you in the future.

I am also going to need your cooperation in putting the 1099's of the
workers on the return as they were left off. They were never given to
me in Production of Documents and obviously for a joint return I need
all the documents.

I am cc:ing this to the only attorney of record I am aware you have.
Perhaps he might have some legal advice for you as to whether it is
better for you to cooperate with me or not.

Please consider this a formal request also to you and your attorney
for immediate inspection of the current books of the business as
defined and outlined in the Family Code. Mike sent me an email on
June 2, 2006 that he contacted Ron regarding cooperation from you in
doing so. I have not had a response yet.

Ann