UNMASKING THE LIE:
WHAT REALLY HAPPENS IN COLLABORATIVE LAW?
by the author of DIVORCE: The Real Truth and Hidden Dangers

                                                                  
                                                                   NOW AVAILABLE: PEEK PREVIEW WITH  VIDEO. see  WHO IS MICHAEL LOWY?   CLICK HERE

MICHAEL LOWY: the background.

These pages are about what happened when an attorney violated attorney client privilege.  Michael Lowy has been practicing law for 35 years.  If an experienced lawyer ignores ethics, shares private client emails and refuses to talk to his client, there is a problem. If you pay $500 an hour to be cheated on, what should you do? What lessons to be learned?

Opposing counsel Ron Romines and my attorney Michael Lowy shared client emails with one another. I will take you behind the scenes of a process that allows freedom to lie to the client, abuse the sysytem and get paid for it. If you think collaborative is better - ask yourself why? Better for who? Is it really better to not use the law? What purpose does the law serve?  What purpose does hiding it from the clients serve?

I analyze, research, provide documentation. You don't have to listen to marketing experts on collaborative any more. Collaborative is marketed as a faster, easier way to make money. You deserve to know why. And do all lawyers like it? NO!.


Many of you ask, "Can my attorney and opposing counsel share information?"

 Not, if it is privileged. However, read what happened in this case.

These pages are in the process of being taken down and put into a book on collaborative law from the consumer's point of view.

Coming soon!     INSIDER SECRETS of COLLABORATIVE LAW


         
"Collaborative lawyers tend not to use advocacy."  Michael J. Lowy,  Palo Alto (personal communication)
                                                          
                                                    

                                                   
                                                                            
                                                                                   

 PAULINE TESLER

RON ROMINES

DAVID WEINBERG

MICHAEL LOWY

AND BE SURE TO GO DOWN The Rabbit Hole of Collaborative Law                  
Now available on Amazon for the Kindle, iPhone,  iPod touch or your Mac or PC.  (download the FREE  Kindle app on amazon)

also available for the PC and Blackberry and other smartphones at MOBIPOCKET

 "Fraud is ok, everybody does it." Attorney Jeff Kaufman, Palo Alto, speaking to pro tem Judge Spencer and attorney Patrick Hall.

  Read the book and find out what happens when an attorney goes rogue in Silicon Valley.  see  JEFFREY KAUFMAN

                                                                    
Only perform such acts as you will not regret later. - Pythagoras






Is The Turn Toward Collaborative Law a Turn Away From Justice?" asks Ronalda Murphy, PhD Harvard Law

  "Collaborative lawyers tend not to use advocacy."  Michael J. Lowy,  Palo Alto (personal communication)

   "When truth is a manipulative, clients never have a chance." Ann Bradley from her BOOK On Divorce.
"
 
Ron Romines and Michael Lowy took collaborative law and used it to abuse the system. Mike agreed to read emails that Ron's client wrote.  Private client emails sent without permission.


     Michael Lowy and Ron Romines shared private client emails in a collaborative case.                   
The CALIFORNIA BAR says:
YOUR ATTORNEY MAY SHARE YOUR PRIVATE E-MAILS with OPPOSING COUNSEL.   This is a dramatic reversal of current law.   

The California Bar responded to my complaint of attorney Ron Romines sending private client emails to opposing counsel (Michael Lowy of Palo Alto),  That's ok! 

The letter from CA State Bar (Aug 12, 08) states: "The State Bar reviewing attorneys determined that the applicable disciplinary rule does not apply to circumstances where the opposing counsel discloses his own client's email to your attorney."

This is a phenomenal interpretation of the ethics code. 

Attorney Ronald Romines has been given carte blanche violation privileges.  Is the former Mayor of Woodside that connected? 

I have appealed this decision and the Bar has sent a letter saying they are working on it.

In another striking letter from the California Bar, they said perhaps the emails were needed as evidence in the case.  I wonder if the people reading complaints are high school graduates?  We know they can't be attorneys...what attorney would share privileged emails, call it evidence, and email it to opposing counsel?

Presdent  HOLLY FUJIE what do you think?  Do you know what the representatives of the California Bar are putting in writing?

Email me and let me know.

CALIFORNIA, tell me what you think and it will be added to DearCaliforniaBar.com
For background on the eroding loss of attorney client privilege in California, see attorney John W. Amberg, litigation partner in the Santa Monica office of Bryan Cave LLP  on Saving the Attorney Client Privilege  (he is a member and former chair of L.A.CBA's Professional Responsibility and Ethics Committee and also a member of the State Bar's Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct.)
                                                         For more on legal ethics around the US see:
LEGAL ETHICS and TECH BLOG


          
                COLLABORATIVE LAW
                                 and
                 The Rendevous with Ethics
   
  "A practicing lawyer has a constant and perpetual rendezvous with ethics."
                                                                            McClure v Donovan (1947) 82 Cal App 2nd 664, 666. 


"Ethics issues are part of everything lawyers do, because the legal profession holds  itself to high standards.  Consequently,  good lawyers are always concerned about the ethical dimension of what they are doing."  Ben Cowgill,  Ben Cowgill's Legal Ethics Blog


This website grew from my experience in collaborative law post divorce.  Collaborative law is marketed and hyped as a panacea.  It isn't.

 Anything  designed and marketed by attorneys for attorneys will not be a panacea.   It sounds good, the words look good,  it makes you "feel good",  so they think it is.   However,  clients have an entirely different experience in collaborative law than the attorneys, a concept they ignore.

Pauline Tesler  hawks collaborative law like detergent and then in her own cases  abandons what she preaches.   If you are thinking of using this process, research the mindset of Pauline Tesler, a legal version of Tom Cruise as cult leader.   See  Pauline Tesler.  Then see a superbly documented case where she ignores the very things she teaches.  (Notice how she undermines collaborative intent by her acts. For example,  she does not want her client talking to the husband without her permission.  Pauline has been taken to arbitration for incompetency.)
"A lawyer who engages in collaborative resolution processes still is bound by the rules of professional conduct....." ABA (American Bar Association)

 I found out my collaborative attorneys were violating attorney client privilege by sharing client emails.   An attorney is an attorney whether he is litigating or mediating or in collaborative.  There is no allowance for ignoring codes and  laws,  collaborative law does not trump real law.  They told us this, they put it in writing.   Yet, behind my back the attorneys were breaking attorney client privilege without permission; failing to do discovery;  and telling us, "the law doesn't matter" and "we can be creative."  

"Creative law."   A malpractice defense?  Or perhaps a defense against a bar complaint?


Power imbalance is a huge problem in collaborative law and narcissism.  Scroll down for
scholarly articles on problems of Collaborative Law including why Narcissistic Personality
Disorder and Collaborative are a dangerous situation.

_____


                           Everything below is a copy of my first website on this topic.




                                                                                 
  first website on this topic. I was stunned to review my file and find out about the collusion between the attorneys.
                                                                                                                    
Who?  attorneys RON ROMINES and MICHAEL LOWY
Where?   Palo Alto, Ca.
What?   Agree to share client emails
When?  Over the past 2 years (2004-2006)
 



                                                                          A tale of two lawyers with two agendas:  one for the client and one for each other. 

                                                                  COLLABORATIVE LAW TEACHERS FLUNK ETHICS!
Failure to communicate, sharing client emails with opposing counsel, lack of advocacy,
information mismanaged,  assisting in fraud despite evidence given...legal misconduct from start to finish.

                                                                            What Were They Thinking?

                                                                                                   "If you're gonna cheat, don't get caught" - Lawyer's Creed
  
                                                                                  From the office of Attorney Ron Romines to  Attorney Michael Lowy:

Michael,

There is a series of emails that I am forwarding to you pursuant to
Ron's discussion with you before he left on vacation. There are 9
emails.

Laura
Assistant to Ron Romines

and there they were.....client's emails sent to opposing counsel.  The entire "collaborative process"
was a fraud.  Breach of contract, lying, neglect, abandonment...

IS THIS THE NEWER, KINDER, GENTLER, WAY TO GET DIVORCED as collaborative law promoters like to call it?
Nope, it's betrayal. Why are these attorneys breaking the law? - because NO ONE IS HELD ACCOUNTABLE. 

It's a free for all, cash cow for the attorney and a train wreck for the client with less power.  How can two sophisticated,
educated attorneys who teach ethics pull a stunt like this?  Mike teaches paralegals at de Anza.  Should he?

Betrayal of client trust.   Post trial, post appeal,  and still unfinished after 2 years of collaborative,  I fired Michael Lowy.
All we had to do was get the money the court ordered to me in 2002.   But he would not meet with me,  return phone calls
and emails for months, he neglected to follow up on promised items, and did the opposite of what I wanted.  He stonewalled
meetings.  It was Theater of the Absurd.  

Opening my file in Dec. 2006  I found stunning revelations of collaborations and betrayals that had gone on for over a year.
Accidentally left there was an email from Ron Romines' legal assistant to Michael Lowy memorializing a conversation to share
emails. I had already spoken to the bar about Mike and Ron for failure to communicate.  They were too busy communicating
with each other to respond to clients.

It is astonishing how two seasoned attorneys could  be so boldly arrogant, and lecture us on Principles and Guidelines they
 so easily abandoned.

                                                                                        Misogyny?   Patriarchy?   Stupidity?   Cupidity? 
               

 The result of their collaboration was  damaging to me, yet they continued to accept fees and act "collaboratively."
 It is stunning legal abuse.

                                                                
    
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
What Are the Ethical Problems in Collaborative Law?                                                 
Divorce Resolution Magazine (2005)   
                                                                                                                                                                                                              
In 2001 I used collaborative techniques to no avail   Trying to Negotiate                                                                                                         

 
           
  Michael Lowy...FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE
                                                           
                                                                     

Palo Alto Collaborative  Law Scandal

 
When I started these collaborative law pages, I had not yet opened my returned file.   When I finally did I found an astonishing story had been going on behind my back.   I have been writing about the corruption on the bench in Dallas.  My own divorce corruption story was right in front of me.

This begins at the present time and works backward.   Now I understand why no one wanted a meeting the last year.   Now I know why my husband got to keep my money and buy a house.   Now I know why the Bar told me Ron and Mike were giving me "non responsive" answers.   Sometimes,  when the legal system becomes so abusive, you want to walk away.  But if you do,  it allows the same thing to  happen over and over.  Tired of attorney abuse,  high fees,  lack of attention to detail, failure to communicate,  and a grand sense of entitlement,  and now disenchanted with collaborative law (see below), I name names,

The attorney client privilege lies with the client.  That means the attorney may not reveal confidences, but the client may choose what to say.  Ron and Mike know this.  

                                                  Dec 29, 2006  RON ROMINES  TELLS ME ABOUT HIS OATH -  After he has broken it..Ron's Oath   

In an email I found in my file, we get a window into some cruel lack of sensitivity.  "Why does Ann want her money so quickly?" Ron Romines wrote.
Quickly?   I filed in 1998.   Would Ron wait seven years to get paid?  We aren't dealing with Mother Theresa or Albert Einstein when we deal with Ron and Mike. 
                          WARNING You are always at risk....this is what I found out when I opened my file.
Dec 13  2006.....I learned today that collaborative law attorney Ron Romines had been sending privileged communications written by my ex husband to my attorney.  Not only did he break the attorney client privilege in a most egregious manner, but by doing so he sabotaged my case.  He gave misinformation to my attorney, Michael Lowy, who did not tell me what was going on or being said about me.   There are four people in a four way meeting in collaborative law.  For over a year, three of them were privy to these emails.  I was the one who did not know what Jim Bradley was saying about me and therefore had no way to rebut the lies.  Even in a criminal case, someone has more rights than that.

I was blindsided and sucker punched by two attorneys who practice collaborative law which bases itself on integrity and transparency.  This is an astonishing act they did - collusion in the collaborative process.  They know a lot about me, they know for instance,  I was willing to settle years ago for $13,000 in back child support.  Jim's attorney, Jeffrey Kaufman, icon of adversarial divorce gotchas, called me greedy that day while his client was spiriting $60,000 out of his mother's account.  He also called me on the phone and threatened me.  But that's another story.  I thought I was finished with dirty attorneys, especially in my own camp, especially in collaborative law.

What  Did I Find In My File?

On June 14, 2005, Michael Lowy received an email from Laura, legal assistant to Ron Romines, which said:

"This is a series of emails that I am forwarding to you pursuant to Ron's discussion with you before he left on vacation. There are 9 emails."  (from Jim Bradley to Ron.)

While they were deciding together to read Ron's client's emails, they were giving lip service to the new language and hype of collaborative law..and both were  saying, "We don't have to follow the law, we can be creative. Ann can get more than what is owed to her under the judgment."   They got creative behind my back,  and we ended up buying  Ron's client a house with my money.    It can get worse....you proved it....we can find hell in a lawyer's office anywhere, anytime...Judge Susan Rankin, you might want to consider collaborative...no messy rules to follow and no one to watch.

CREATIVE? Ron's client had been creative for a very long time, creating double books, creating myths ... I would ask if we could use the law, they asked why I wanted to.

Collaborative Law?  No. Collaborative Ambush

My attorney collaborated with opposing counsel in damaging me.  We were in a collaborative process which is supposed to be based on integrity and transparency. This was deceit and cover-ups.

Both of them know the law. They chose to ignore it.   But in a conversation memorialized by Ron's assistant, we know they talked about the emails and knowingly, willingly, and with intent, agreed to send them, read them and not disclose to either client.

Beyond the Obvious Ethics Violation

Jim Bradley is not someone you want to talk about you behind your back.  Here's a snapshot:

Jim admitted to defrauding the court, the IRS and me. He lost at trial, was sanctioned $10,000, was kicked out of the court once for lying to the judge.  He appealed and lost. They told him he was harmful to me and harmed me a lot. He failed to produce documents, he filed false police reports, he was taken in on contempt charges, he forced us to do Motion to Compel and even after all this, he STILL sent false returns to the IRS and still never disclosed a half a million trust.  He did not produce requested documents in collaborative - all of this means I had an absolute right  and need to know what he was saying about me.  He has yet to pay the judgment, he has yet to pay the money he promised to help what he destroyed and stole from me, but RON ROMINES assists him? Yes.

And because he did, he never, ever came to the table with anything but disdain for me. He should never have sent those emails to Mike and Jim has the right to expect they will be held in confidence as well as I expect my attorney will not engage in deception and fail to properly represent me.

The ability to trust your attorney is fundamental.

 These men smashed one of the supposedly most sacred trusts - what you say stays with your attorney.  Michael Lowy, my attorney did not tell me what Jim was saying.  He did not, because he could not.  He knew he was not supposed to see those emails from Jim, he knew Ron was wrong in sending them, and he was wrong in wanting to read them.  He assisted, engaged in and was a willing participant in the sending of the emails.

What Was Going On......The Result or This is what you get for $350 per hour.

After Ron received these fabrications from my ex, his attitude to me was chilling.  Abusive at one point. No apology.  Months later, after living in a series of motels,  I sent 30 requests for a meeting in a 3 month period.  I was stonewalled and ignored. It got so obvious I called the Bar.  The ONLY person in my collaborative group not hiding, cheating and lying was me.  I was the fool in the room, being tormented again and never able to figure out why. NOW I KNOW. When you feel the sting of injustice, it is there. I didn't know why. Now I know they were sharing Jim's emails...his made up narcissistic projections. (want to find out what a narcissist is doing? see what he accuses you of)

How much harm was done to me? I can't even begin to calculate it right now. I have an email to Mike that begins, "It has been 7 months I have been asking for you to respond to me..." I have an email from his assistant, Jody, which says, "I am sorry Mike doesn't return your calls."

It's a good thing these people teach ethics. It might be the only time they remember what they are.


                                                                                              (The following was written before I discovered what was in my file.)
          

                                                                                                            Thinking of using Collaborative Law ?  READ:

IS THE TURN TOWARD COLLABORATIVE LAW A TURN AWAY FROM  JUSTICE?  Ronalda Murphy, Esq., Harvard University....her excellent article on this page.





                                                                                       C O L L A B O R A T I V E   L A W
                                                                                   The Fantasy:
"Each side has legal advice and advocacy built in at all times during the process.  Even if one side or the other lacks negotiating skill or financial understanding, or is emotionally upset or angry, the playing field is leveled by the direct participation of the skilled advocates. "  Pauline Tesler, J.D.
                                                                                      The Facts:
                              "Collaborative lawyers tend not to use advocacy."  Michael Lowy,J.D



                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                                                                                                      Divorce Resolution Magazine (2005)
                                                                                                                                                                      What are the ethical problems in Collaborative Law?
                                                                                                                                                                                        

Hope and Time Lost in Planet Collaborative                                           In 2001, I used collaborative techniques, to no avail:
Ann Bradley, MA                                                                                                   Trying to Negotiate
                                                             
Like any new thing, innovators and early adopters are
passionate about what they create and endorse. Collaborative                                  Two years in Collaborative Law:
law advocates are no different.  Pauline Tesler, a                                                      The Rabbit Hole
ceaseless, tireless spokesperson for the joy of
collaboration is ubiquitous: her words,  murky and                                                
enthusiastic, are splashed over the internet, in                                                                                                  
scholarly and not so scholarly articles.                                                                                                  

But talk to her  dissatisfied clients and you hear
about her "inner litigator" surfacing.  I don't                                                                
blame Tesler for the surfacing of the inner litigator.                                                                                      
The law is necessary, even more so when ignored  for feel
good win-win solutions that end up  lose-lose, but
lose less than if you quit now and enter litigation.                                

I blame Pauline Tesler and her ilk for hucksterism,                                                     
boosterism, and shameless cult like manipulation of language                                    
and facts.                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                              
Don't Even THINK of Collaborative without these insights:
IS THE TURN TOWARD COLLABORATIVE LAW A TURN AWAY FROM JUSTICE? Ronalda Murphy, Esq. Harvard School of Law

The new trend in Collaborative Family Law (CFL) in the United States  and Canada raises new questions about theories of justice. CFL and Canada raises new the goals of a viable theory of justice and its implicit critique of the legal system is a valid one.  However, it unnecessarily demonizes law and has yet to explicitly  articulate where it fits in terms of its own theory of justice. After considering the claims made by CFL, it is apparent that while some are productive, others are problematic and should be discarded.  Specifically, CFL's rejection of factual determinacy may be inappropriate in some cases. The CFL approach has the potential to ignore problems of power imbalance, and may sacrifice just outcomes for the sake of efficiency.  The emphasis on relationships and the need for their protection is not always an appropriate approach, and in demonizing law in favor of private ordering, CFL unnecessarily rejects the importance of law as a site for public participation in the creation and defense of norms. CFL is an important step forward in law reform, but if it is to fulfill its potential, it needs to incorporate within its practice a theory of justice that avoids the pitfalls of liberal individualism and allows for the public authorship of norms.


MY CASE
Over two years, post appeal, were spent in CL.  Ron Romines
supported his client in escalating the power imbalance by looking
for expedient answers.  The rhetoric to rebuilding the infrastructure
of my life as a win-win faded away.  It was too much work, and my
persistence in face of time gone by was interpreted as me being the problem.
I was told to be quiet, to not allow the fraud to determine the future. Instead of
calling it fraud, they refer to it as the past and insinuate I am stuck
in a time warp.  Go figure. Women are supposed to suck it up, if
we don't, call us names.

Michael Lowy, my former collaborative law attorney wanted to settle at my
expense for the sake of efficiency. My former husband has bought a
house with my money, uses cash to suspend the paper trail that caught him
before, and ignores  discovery for a Trust which he never disclosed and
was to have been used for child  support.  Instead, we found out he supports a woman with
child and spousal support monies and income from the business.

None of this seemed to be important to Mike and Ron. I got blank stares
when I brought these topics up, which I guess was better than when they
got angry at me, but  when my friends understood the family code better
than my collaborative attorneys, this blank stare became a window into
the mind of people who chanted, "process, process" at me for too god damn long.

Collaborative law has put money in their pocket as it took
from me.

I won at trial, I won the appeal  forced on me, and collaborative demanded I
give up my rights, ignore the law and "move on" with my life while they
shackled my hands and stood on my toes.