Jeff Kaufman                                                                                           
David Weinberg
collaborative law                                    
Michael Lowy
Ron Romines
Pauline Tesler CL Bar Complaint
                                                    
Pauline Tesler and  The New Urban Myth:
 Collaborative Law Is Less Expensive, Easier, and Friendlier Than  Litigation
       
                                                                                                    
 

As unofficial spokesperson for the Collaborative Law movement,   Pauline Tesler can be found in every nook and cranny of the internet,  manipulating language to explain this movement.   In one intriguingly deceptive statement she says:  "If the lawyers do not succeed in helping the clients resolve the problem, the lawyers are out of a job."  Her choice of  how to position this ending is remarkable in its focus on the attorney rather than the client.

Rather than asking the client to pity the attorney (!),  focus on the client now forced into litigation to start over,  unable to use anything done in collaborative,  and now paying new attorneys.  Why does Tesler focus on an attorney out of a job?  Because she puts herself at the center of the collaborative universe.   Disinterested in the client's interests,  posturing myths, she powers on.

In her failure to honestly portray collaborative law,  Tesler damages divorcing clients.  She does them no favor when she markets so aggressively that she lies.   Here's someone who knows Pauline and what she really does - an insider takes down the curtain:  Pauline As She Really Is 

Pauline in action brings to the table none of what she preaches.  The myth of collaborative as easier and cheaper turns out to be just that.  Scratch a collaborator and find a litigator.  Words are easy, but they are not cheap in the Land of We Make it Up As We Go.

Interested in more of the truth behind the words?  See:

              IS COLLABORATIVE JUST A LEGAL SCAM   and  RESTING PLACE FOR WEARY ATTORNEYS?
                                           


COLLABORATIVE LAW,  SHAMANS,  JUNGIANS   Oy Vey!  Pauline Tesler, cult leader, ...flirting with disaster.
 Lawyer or wanna be High Priestess?  I could never put my finger on the exact "ickiness" of collaborative law while I was in it, but reading how Pauline Tesler came to her "supersaturated solution" (her words) epiphany made it clear.   In her own words, this woman tells us that JUNGIAN PSYCH (possibly close to scientology in its absurdity and not given credence in respected universities ) was her inspiration. 

Princeton University press published a book on The Jung Cult  which explores Jung's Aryan beliefs,  his mother who spoke in tongues,  his  belief he spoke to the dead and that he thought he was a manifestation of a lion, ...and how he wanted to start a new religion...similar to what Pauline is doing....cult leaders tend to act alike.

 Her video is ridiculous, but like any cult leader she  thinks it helps her cause.  The clients that take her to arbitration have a different story..a difficult woman whose inner litigator comes out swinging when she wants it.

This is one of the scariest passages I have read in relation to collaborative law.   It shows us why collaborative is  a hoax and Pauline its magical cult leader.  That anyone takes this woman seriously is testimony to how easily anyone can be fooled.

Shadow client?  Or shadow liigator?

 Her video follows.


Pauline Tesler speaks:

Because I had an interest in Jungian psychology, I started thinking in terms of archetypal psychology about changing the way I did family law so that it possibly could achieve something useful.  I was immersed in that inquiry, reading at the Jung Institute library, studying privately with Angeles Arrien, a Shamanic anthropologist who teaches from the perspective of what we can learn from simpler cultures about how to do our  professional work in a complex culture in a personally authentic way.   I came to the conclusion that what was needed was a way to speak to the right side of lawyers’ brains, to reshape the warrior or gladiator archetype that we all carry with us every day into something wiser and more constructively adapted to the needs of divorcing families.

All pieces were there, but I didn’t know what to do with them.  I was sort of floundering as to how I was going to pull all this together. Then I saw an article in the Family Law News by Jamie Throgmorton about a Collaborative Law seminar Stu Webb had given.  In a moment of utter certainty, I knew that this was exactly what I had to do.  It calls to mind the transformation of a supersaturated solution; it is the dropping of  that last bead into the solution that instantly transforms it into crystals.  I was the product of a whole series of life experiences, frustrations and angst that led me to flounder around for all those years trying to figure out how to make family law better for me and my clients. ...I began to understand structurally how archetypal psychology related to the work I was doing with Angie about how to evoke the best from my clients and colleagues, how these related to everything I saw as being problematic in family law systems and how every piece of integrating my own work into the collaborative model made sense no matter which lens I used to look at it.  We intuitive thinking types: all you have to do is give us a concept - we may be pretty weak on the details at first but that doesn’t trouble us one single bit because we know the whole thing will ultimately come together, just from seeing that first kernel.

Bringing into collaborative practice the concept of the "shadow client" is the contribution that I think I’ve made to the evolution of the collaborative model.  It’s an important foundation of my introductory trainings, and it comes directly from that work that I did with Angeles Arrien and in archetypal psychology.  Paying attention to the psychodynamics of what’s happening in our clients’ lives and the psychodynamics at the table with us is to my mind the most significant thing that differentiates us from litigating family law attorneys. You can’t do this work at a high level without being deeply attuned to that dimension of our work.  It’s what separates the sheep from the goats in collaborative practice.




                                                                                   


        


Pauline Tesler and Peggy Thompson on your children and finances:

"Collaborative divorce....informs you fully about how your children are experiencing the divorce and what they need to weather the big changes in their  family structure without harm  It helps protect your future relationship with your spouse by informing both of you fully -- together, at the same time -- about the financial realities of your marriage and divorce in a way that eliminates pointless arguments about economic issues."

Sounds nice?

Only if you don't think about it.  Stepping back from the rhetoric, ask, "Can a process really tell me what my children are going through?"

Do you really need a warren of  'experts' to tell you how to parent?  

Those so called 'pointless arguments' about economic issues...how pointless are they really?   Why do people argue?  Because each one HAS A POINT TO MAKE.  They are hardly pointless. They serve a valuable function, but only if fully given voice. Tesler and Thompson shut you up before you begin.

Women, already socialized to be sweet and nice and avoid arguments are the very ones who most need to have those not so 'pointless arguments'.  Tesler has  many unhappy clients who complain about her lack of skills in communication.  What could make this more clear than listening to this video?

                    Patronizing? You decide!   Watch  Pauline Tesler and Peggy Thompson in action.



             


                     Woud YOU spend $500 an hour to be talked to like this?



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 (amount billed) was $21,756.62. 

Add a similar amount for Jim's attorney fees to see the cost of getting nowhere was almost $50,000.

If you still think CL 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. In another case,  one of Mr. Lowy's clients communicated with me for quite a while about her sessions, and told me her fears - everyone in the group discussed THEIR agenda and THEIR perceptions of what the issues were 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.  She had little or no time to discuss issues with Mike beforehand, and when she tried in the meetings, she was acccused 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 mad ethe 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 indiifferent,
at times indignant that I should even know what they are.

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, tortious, 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 lived in motels. 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