I had an awful experience with Rubin & Levavi. Their "defense" of me in Family Court consisted of admitting guilt and contrition for what wasn't a crime, but rather an unchallenged perception. I became responsible for what a school staff person privately said to a student (characterizing me & describing the nature of an otherwise ambiguous "incident"). It mattered what the student thought, yet not where the prejudicial information came from, the unmonitored staff-to-student communication violating school procedures and qualifying as psychological child abuse. The attorney work-product gets high marks for effusive deference to authority.
Lawyers should spot missing witness testimony (the number of actors different than the number of written statements). A friend of mine did (free), though too late. I like Nancy, and her daughter, Monica, but legally would only use them to establish an alibi.
---------------
01/29/15 - Reply to business owner's public response to me on January 27th ...
In responding to my unfavorable Yelp review, Monica Levavi has discussed case details and possibly made it possible to identify me, conceivably breaching our attorney-client confidentiality.
Yelp viewers will recognize the sudden burst of positive reviews here as damage control. My review sat alone for two months and now suddenly, in less than a week, a bunch of five-star reviews appear.
I don't doubt the other reviewer's sincerity and I like Nancy and Monica, too. For me, though, their representation proved negligent and disastrous.
Let's examine Monica's factual errors ...
1.) "We agreed to take on your case (when others wouldn't)."
No. I was referred to them by another firm that lacked resources to take on an additional family law case.
2.) "You may recall that when you hired Nancy and me more than three years ago, you were not allowed to see your child."
No, in fact the opposite. No restrictions existed on me seeing my daughter and I sought their help to impose order in a difficult co-parenting arrangement.
3.) "I was sad that our attorney/client relationship deteriorated so quickly - but as I told you then, I could not, in good conscious, continue to push an agenda that might not be in the best interest of the child."
Who did they represent? Duties exist in an attorney-client relationship and Monica possibly adds new prejudice to earlier withdrawal-of-representation errors, when Nancy Rubin arrived in court 20 minutes late and, in front of the judge and opposing counsel, had me sign a representation release. This potentially violates several codes of professional conduct and, without doubt, damaged my case.
The Family Law principle to put children first doesn't relieve attorneys of other mandated duties. Monica congratulates herself for pursuing a child's best interests, and yet didn't notice the missing testimony of a school staff person who had an hour to psychologically abuse my daughter.
4.) "You 'fell off the wagon' and turned against us - the very people who were trying to help you."
I wasn't prohibited from drinking. I didn't endanger anyone. The subject is none of Monica's business, least of all to discuss at Yelp.
Conclusion - I don't know why Monica gets basic facts wrong. I doubt that she or Nancy intentionally deceive. Sometimes they may not listen closely enough. I'm certain of my facts and now know an additional one, that Monica doesn't confirm details before speaking.
I hope in time that my bad review becomes a rare anomaly that people can safely dismiss. Nancy and Monica are nice people and their practice does more good than harm.
Personally, I don't want lawyers deciding for me what's best and "nice" isn't the main quality I seek from attorneys.
Peter read more