Create your own banner at mybannermaker.com!
            Click the banner above to find out more about about Ron Romines and read My Neurons Make Me Do It. 
Curious about a Baywatch Babe and her divorce from her rock star husband from Motley Crue? I take you behind the scenes of that and Nikki Sixx's FAKED MEMOIR. You won't find this information anywhere else.



Considering Collaborative Law? Think it's honest, ethical, less expensive? Actually, it can be. But it is also an easy way for an attorney to make a lot of money without having to follow the law and since there is no oversight, who knows? You, the client? Not likely.

This story is here as cautionary tale. Also, see the one from Pauline Tesler's client. If the gurus of the movement get it wrong, how's it gonna play in your town?


Collaborative

Down The Rabbit Hole of Collaborative Law

Tesler Client

Conflict of Interest


Pauline Tesler

Michael Lowy

David Weinberg

Jeffrey Kaufman

Ethics,  Lies, and Collaborative Law: Ron Romines

Ron Romines was hired by my ex.  When my ex sent him emails, he sent them to opposing counsel (my attorney, Michael Lowy.)

Without permission.

This is a violation of attorney-client privilege.

The California Bar states:
  It is a duty of a member:  "To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client." A member's duty to preserve the confidentiality of client information involves public policies of paramount importance. (In Re Jordan (1974) 12 Cal.3d 575, 580 [116 Cal.Rptr. 371].)


Mark Perlmutter, attorney and author, Why Lawyers (And the Rest of Us) Lie:    "...one of the systemic influences on lying in the legal system is that lying is a norm. It's an insidious development. We lawyers start by justifying it in circumstances in which 'everybody does it'. Then, once on the slippery slope of justification, we find it easy to rationalize lying in more and more circumstances. Eventually, it becomes so commonplace  that we're now unconscious of it."

I knew the lawyers were unethical. I knew they were going behind my back with something. I knew they were ignoring the law for their ease. I asked them to sign a statement that they would follow the law. I knew they hid behind collaborative because no one is there to oversee it. In dark corners, evil flourishes. Ron was indignant. Of course he was following the law. Of course he was because he signed an oath to do so. 

But of course he wasn't. He called opposing counsel and asked if he wanted to read his client's emails. Of course he had no permission. Of course this was not told to us in the four way in a "transparent" method as they constantly lectured us about.


THIS IS THE DIVORCE THAT WENT TO THE COURT OF APPEALS THAT RON ROMINES COULDN'T HANDLE

Walk inside a Silicon Valley divorce with lying lawyers, corruption, and greed. This is not just a story, it is analysis, it is secrets revealed. It is the truth behind the facade of family law. For your PC, Kindle or iPhone. COMING SOON to iPAD!

 The California Bar states:
 it is a duty of a member: "To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client." A member's duty to preserve the confidentiality of client information involves public policies of paramount importance. (In Re Jordan (1974) 12 Cal.3d 575, 580 [116 Cal.Rptr. 371].)

  and yet Ron Romines shared client emails with Michael Lowy, opposing counsel who agreed to read them.


WARNING.  This is a tale of privilege and entitlement: attorney Ron Romines defrauds clients in his collaborative practice and violates ethics codes. HE SENT PRIVATE CLIENTS EMAILS TO ATTORNEY MICHAEL LOWY to manipulate the collaborative case.   The State Bar knows this.  If you are thinking of hiring him, think again. Ron is motivated by money; he is ethically challenged. Ron was not my attorney, but that of my husband who complained how quick Ron wasto ask to be paid and rather slow cognitively.

 Click the link Tesler Client above for another amazing tale of a con artist and how she violates all the principles of collborative law she teaches. I know a lot of people come to this site to read about these attorneys when thinking of hiring them. Thank you for your emails.


Attorney RON ROMINES, former Mayor Of Woodside, CA shared privileged client emails with opposing counsel, Michael Lowy. They agreed on the phone and via email to do so

Despite this being an ethics violation, The CA State Bar said: "Ron, do what you want."

Not in those words, but in these words:

"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."  They can??? Are we reading the same ethics code?  I appealed.

Feb 1, 2009

UPDATE:  Three and a half months later the California Bar (Audit and Review) responds.  They say there is not sufficient grounds for further investigation DESPITE listing the violations, in the letter including that Ron Romines took his client's email and shared it with opposing counsel. 

I was never told what was in the emails and had no opportunity to rebut the fabrications.  But it doesn't matter- the law is clear that Ron Romines had no legal grounds to share the emails.

And yet...the Bar..says, not enough to discipline.

Arguably, the Bar is more inclined to allow attorney client privilege to be waived than to prosecute one of its own.

The two quite unimpressive letters I recieved from the Bar should have a chilling effect on clients in California.

The Bar sent instructions how to file a verified accusation against Romines to the California Supreme Court.


                                                                                                                          1.6:200   Professional Duty of Confidentiality

     Primary California References: CRPC 3-310, B&PC   ¤ 6068, Evid. Code 950-955
    Background References: ABA   Model Rule 1.6, Other Jurisdictions
    Commentary: ABA/BNA ¤ 55:101, ALI-LGL ¤¤ 111-117A,   Wolfram ¤¤ 6.1, 6.7

The attorney-client relationship is one of strict fiduciality and confidentiality.  See Zador Corp. N.V. v. C.K. Kwan (6th Dist. 1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1285, 1293, 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 754 (an attorney and a client have a fiduciary relationship of the very highest character, requiring  the attorney to respect his or her client's confidences); McClure v. Donovan (2nd Dist. 1947) 82 Cal.App.2d 664, 666, 186 P.2d 718 (the attorney-client relationship is sacred and confidential). The integrity of the legal profession requires at all times the protection of a client who depends  upon and confides in the attorney. See C.O.P.R.A.C. Op. 1981-58 (1981). The duty of confidentiality arises whenever a lawyer-client relationship exists and protects all information regarding the representation, regardless of the source of the information. See Commercial Standard   Title Co., Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (4th Dist. 1979) 92 Cal.App.3d   934, 155 Cal.Rptr. 393. The broad duty of confidentiality should not   be confused with the narrower attorney-client privilege. See Wolfram   ¤ 6.7.3; See also C.O.P.R.A.C. Op. 1993-133   (duty to maintain client confidences and secrets inviolate is broader in scope   than the privilege); L.A. Op. 436 (1985) (confidence  and secrets under B&PC ¤ 6068(e) is far broader than the attorney-client privilege). The attorney-client privilege only protects client communications made to a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining legal advice.   See Id.; See also Geoffrey C. Hazard,   Jr., et al., The Law and Ethics of Lawyering, at 220-349 (2d ed. 1994).  

The following comments on B&PC   ¤ 6068(e) are taken from Karpman & Margolis pages 171 and 174:

Privileged communications do not become discoverable solely because they are related to issues raised in litigation. However, a lawyer may divulge confidential client communications to defend against actions brought against the lawyer by the client. Schlumberger, Ltd. v. Superior   Court (2nd Dist. 1981) 115 Cal.App.3d 386, 392-393, 171 Cal.Rptr. 413.                                            
   



      


                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          BACKGROUND
Ron Romines sent private client emails to opposing counsel in violation of  Rule 3-100 violating attorney client privilege.

The State of California is clear:

.... it is a duty of a member: "To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client." A member's duty to preserve the confidentiality of client information involves public policies of paramount importance. (In Re Jordan (1974) 12 Cal.3d 575, 580 [116 Cal.Rptr. 371].)


Under no circumstances may an attorney violate attorney client privilege except if he has reason to believe a crime will be committed resulting in a death.

This is an unusual circumstance.   The emails were written in an acrimonious case where my ex had lost at trial, lost in the Court of Appeals and was forced to amend his tax returns by the judge and to repay monies he had stolen from me.   He had been assisted by counsel at trial in this fraud upon the court. (His attorney, Jeffrey Kaufman,  told the pro tem judge he had no problem with bringing the false documents to court because he was going to "pin the fraud on Ann".  My attorney, in an unusual act,  told the CA Bar about this. Their response: it was said in a settlement conference and we can do nothing about it. This is not true, but I was too tired to continue at that point.)

The emails were made up by my ex to make me look bad.  Perhaps Ron believed them.  It doesn't matter.  He betrayed his client, he betrayed me, and he betrayed the entire collaborative law process we were in.  He  violated the one ethics rule which California prides itself on being the toughest in the nation: you don't tell anyone what your client said. Period.   It was an act of betrayal and manipulation.  When my own attorney, Michael Lowy, agreed to read them, I was then the ONLY ONE not knowing what was being said about me. A year went by in a process which everyone was backstabbing me and I had no idea.

When you start down a slippery slope of entitlement, where does it end?

 This was the same strategy my former husband  used through years of  the divorce when he refused to settle. If he didn't like reality, he changed it.  Ron knew this about his client. He should have known he who makes a double set of books will make up stories.

Ron used these emails to further his case and convince my attorney I was a problem.   The only problem at this point were the attorneys violating ethics left and right and an ex husband that wasn't happy about paying me a money judgment. 
  



                       
                                                        



                                                                                             

                                      Rule 3-100.  Confidential Information of a Client:

                     "Let's share client emails",  Ron Romines said to Mike Lowy.   Mike agreed.

                                                                      Rule 3-100?     Ditched

                                     "We don't need to follow the law", Mike and Ron said.
                                           
                        And so they didn't.   Breach of contract, negligence, fraud, lies to clients, betrayal.
 
  Rule 5-220. Suppression of Evidence.   A member shall not suppress any evidence that the member or the member's client has a legal obligation to reveal or to produce.
After two years of collaborative law and numerous requests for documents,
we got only those which I already had or were meaningless.   Bank
documents, especially those tracing the trust monies of the Trust for
which Jim was  beneficiary and trustee were always, "coming". 

They never arrived. 

This same Trust was never disclosed to the Court.

Despite proving fraud, despite his client being sanctioned $10,000,
Ron Romines let his client get away with more fraud.

 Rule 5-220?  Ditched.

                             
 The Cost of Lying to Clients,  Sharing Privileged Information,  Negligence,  Conflict  of Interest
 Pauline Tesler calls collaborative law a "container".  Great description, Pauline.  It contains and constrains clients while attorneys are free to smash clients with marketing hype and ignore the law.  Collaborative is practiced in secret, lawyers are free to ignore the law at the expense of the individuals.  The party with more economic power, with more information, uses the darkness of the "container" to hide  assets while pretending they do not.  The cost to the individual with less power is loss of voice, money, and advocacy from their attorney. 

The cost to society is huge because fraud unchecked is a slippery slope to more abuse in every arena. 

Cost of abuse?  Enormous.  Code of ethics?  Ditched.

Mark Perlmutter, attorney and author, Why Lawyers (And the Rest of Us) Lie              

                "...one of the systemic influences on lying in the legal
                system is that lying is a norm. It's an insidious
                development. We lawyers start by justifying it in
                circumstances in which 'everybody does it'. Then, once
                on the slippery slope of justification, we find it
                easy to rationalize lying in more and more
                circumstances. Eventually, it becomes so commonplace
                that we're now unconscious of it."

                                                                           
 
Ron Romines sent private client emails to opposing counsel in violation of  Rule 3-100 violating attorney client privilege.

The State of California is clear:

.... it is a duty of a member: "To maintain inviolate the confidence, and at every peril to himself or herself to preserve the secrets, of his or her client." A member's duty to preserve the confidentiality of client information involves public policies of paramount importance. (In Re Jordan (1974) 12 Cal.3d 575, 580 [116 Cal.Rptr. 371].)


Under no circumstances may an attorney violate attorney client privilege except if he has reason to believe a crime will be committed resulting in a death.

This is an unusual circumstance.   The emails were written in an acrimonious case where my ex had lost at trial, lost in the Court of Appeals and was forced to amend his tax returns by the judge and to repay monies he had stolen from me.   He had been assisted by counsel at trial in this fraud upon the court. (His attorney, Jeffrey Kaufman,  told the pro tem judge he had no problem with bringing the false documents to court because he was going to "pin the fraud on Ann".  My attorney, in an unusual act,  told the CA Bar about this. Their response: it was said in a settlement conference and we can do nothing about it. This is not true, but I was too tired to continue at that point.)

The emails were made up by my ex to make me look bad.  Perhaps Ron believed them.  It doesn't matter.  He betrayed his client, he betrayed me, and he betrayed the entire collaborative law process we were in.  He  violated the one ethics rule which California prides itself on being the toughest in the nation: you don't tell anyone what your client said. Period.   It was an act of betrayal and manipulation.  When my own attorney, Michael Lowy, agreed to read them, I was then the ONLY ONE not knowing what was being said about me. A year went by in a process which everyone was backstabbing me and I had no idea.

When you start down a slippery slope of entitlement, where does it end?

 This was the same strategy my former husband  used through years of  the divorce when he refused to settle. If he didn't like reality, he changed it.  Ron knew this about his client. He should have known he who makes a double set of books will make up stories.

Ron used these emails to further his case and convince my attorney I was a problem.   The only problem at this point were the attorneys violating ethics left and right and an ex husband that wasn't happy about paying me a money judgment. 
  



                       
                                                        



                                      Rule 3-100.  Confidential Information of a Client:

                     "Let's share client emails",  Ron Romines said to Mike Lowy.   Mike agreed.

                                                                      Rule 3-100?     Ditched

                                     "We don't need to follow the law", Mike and Ron said.
                                           
                        And so they didn't.   Breach of contract, negligence, fraud, lies to clients, betrayal.
 
  Rule 5-220. Suppression of Evidence.   A member shall not suppress any evidence that the member or the member's client has a legal obligation to reveal or to produce.
After two years of collaborative law and numerous requests for documents,
we got only those which I already had or were meaningless.   Bank
documents, especially those tracing the trust monies of the Trust for
which Jim was  beneficiary and trustee were always, "coming". 

They never arrived. 

This same Trust was never disclosed to the Court.

Despite proving fraud, despite his client being sanctioned $10,000,
Ron Romines let his client get away with more fraud.

 Rule 5-220?  Ditched.

                             
 The Cost of Lying to Clients,  Sharing Privileged Information,  Negligence,  Conflict  of Interest
 Pauline Tesler calls collaborative law a "container".  Great description, Pauline.  It contains and constrains clients while attorneys are free to smash clients with marketing hype and ignore the law.  Collaborative is practiced in secret, lawyers are free to ignore the law at the expense of the individuals.  The party with more economic power, with more information, uses the darkness of the "container" to hide  assets while pretending they do not.  The cost to the individual with less power is loss of voice, money, and advocacy from their attorney. 

The cost to society is huge because fraud unchecked is a slippery slope to more abuse in every arena. 

              Cost of abuse?  Enormous.  Code of ethics?  Ditched.

Mark Perlmutter, attorney and author, Why Lawyers (And the Rest
of Us) Lie              

                "...one of the systemic influences on lying in the legal
                system is that lying is a norm. It's an insidious
                development. We lawyers start by justifying it in
                circumstances in which 'everybody does it'. Then, once
                on the slippery slope of justification, we find it
                easy to rationalize lying in more and more
                circumstances. Eventually, it becomes so commonplace
                that we're now unconscious of it."


Read attorney Mark Perlmutter's book on how and why he stopped lying.

                     




                                                                                                                Why Does This Culture Reward People Like Ron?


                                                                                                                  see Philip Zimbardo, PhD, The Lucifer Effect


                                                                                           Why don't you hear more about it?

People do not like to 'out' themselves when they have been snookered and scammed.  They hide the fact they have been
taken to the cleaners  by high priced scam artists.  They keep quiet. Those that talk are in the minority.


                                                                                                         The Price of Ignorance is High
Family law has become such a cash cow that attorneys are switching from other specialties. 
Collaborative is top of the rung:  NO ONE IS ACCOUNTABLE.  They can do what they
want behind closed doors.


They self refer ruthlessly until an expensive team of 'experts' is in place.  The Bar will never know what they do wrong because
clients don't even know they are being mesmerized by the hype, and too embarrassed when they wake up to discuss it.

There is no court reporter, only "notes" taken by one of the attorneys.  Technology is not used, when it should be there, front and center.

The attorneys do not have to know case law, or even code.  They just wing it.   Noshing and nodding off, they collect their
pound of flesh.  Clients are forced to defend themselves and research case law, like myself, and a Ron Romines is threatened
by these actions.  I watched his face and his reactions were easily read.  He did not like anything about me, I was asking to use
the law and he either didn't know it or ignored it.  He should have reread the Principles and Guidelines and left the case as soon as
he forwarded the emails.


                                                                 Little did I know I was a year too late when I asked Ron to agree to follow the law. 


                                                                                               He was already sharing emails with Mike.  

Here's Ron's response, written a year after he already participated in Mike and Ron's version of "collaboration".

 Later, Ron quit the process when his buddy Mike was fired.  Two years and nothing was done except he helped
his client buy a house using "the process" to do so. 



  
           From:    romineslaw@mindspring.com
           Subject:     Scheduling 4-way meeting
           Date:     July 18, 2006 10:59:45 AM PDT
           To:       panet@psnw.com, lowylaw@yahoo.com
           Cc:       JIM, legalassist@mindspring.com

Ann and Mike:  


.......regarding the law, I took an oath to uphold the Constitution, state and federal laws and ethical standards 35 years ago, and nothing has changed since.  
             

Then how does Ron explain forwarding his clients emails in a process based on honesty and neglecting to discuss with the group?

                                                                        He doesn't.

Lawyers and judges.  Judges and lawyers.  Appointed, anointed, and ....Above The Law???  This hilarious parody of
Judges Who Think They Are God by Austin lawyers is not to be missed..