Nolan Heller Kauffman LLP

Please read first 4 reviews, in backwards order; in order for this one to make sense

So I went to see Goldin, unscheduled, to ask him why he lied to the Committee on Professional Standards.

I was not angry, just really curious. As explained in other posts, there was really no reason for Goldin to lie, he could have defended himself without the lies.



I got to his office, he allowed me in his office, we sat down.

I was very nervous, and asked very meekly; why he felt the need to lie to the Committee on Professional Standards, as he really didnot have to to defend himself.



He immediately got angry, told me our time together was now over, ordered me out of the office, threatened to call the police and charge me with harrassment. I saw he could not be talked to, and just calmly walked out of the office, saying nothing more. As I walked out of the office into the lobby area of the building, he followed me into the lobby, shouting something like you better watch yourself, couldn't quite make out the exact words but something like that.



The encounter left me rather shaken, honestly didnot expect that. Thought maybe he would try to explain himself, or perhaps say things like there were misunderstandings (which of course would be a lie, but thought maybe thats what he would do). Really didnot expect him to raise his voice and start threatening me.



As always, I swear to God, everything written above is true.

(continuation

-- In case you're wondering, he got away with his lies. The Committee on Professional Standards doesn't actually investigate (they didnot talk to other people involved in the case, or use any common sense based on legal precedent or human nature to figure things out), instead they just take statements from each side and then say well nothing is proven.

--- They also said they investigate misconduct, not malpractice, and they said my basic charge that what Goldin told me the legal seperation agreement was not accurate, based on what other lawyers said; was really a charge of malpractice, not misconduct; and they only deal with misconduct. Therefore, there really is no recourse for a situation like this, where an agreement is signed based on a lawyer's word, and it turns out the lawyer is some combination of corrupt, disinterested, and incompetant. Suing lawyers is not really an option, a lawyer is almost never going to sue another lawyer, they tend to stick together

---Regarding the lies, again since they don't actually investigate, but just take statements, the Committee had no interest in pursuing it. Their answers were dishonest regarding the lies, like the lie that Goldin met the Judge 5 times, when it was just 2, they just said its a meaningless distinction, same as if he said they met on June 26, and it was really June 28; which was just extroadinarily dishonest response by them, as this lie was about Goldin trying to convey that he made an effort, when he really didn't; plus the very fact of the terms of the agreement makes it clear the Judge didnot really understand the variables involved; plus the fact that the Judge remembered absolutely nothing about the case (I wrote to him, and that is how he responded) indicates a lie (how could the Judge remember nothing if there were 5 meetings on it, and it was a rather unusual case in several respects). Regarding the fact that Goldin was saying something the other 15 or so lawyers I have talked to have not, with respect to the likelihood of lifetime maintenance in a short marraige, not to the mention the impossibility that someone would actually sign an agreement that could be interpreted that way from a short term marraige, as I said they don't use any common sense or refer to any legal precedents. If all you do is take statements from both sides, its basically rigging the process so no one is ever found guilty of anything.

-- Obviously its difficult to trust that organization when its lawyers policing lawyers. Wish I had some stats on what percentage of the time they actually rule against the lawyer, can't really take their organization seriously without that.



Thats it; I swear to God, everything written above is true.



I would strongly strongly ask that everyone that users lawyers, review them. Their has been no real accountability in the legal profession for a long, long time; and obviously it would help consumers and society immensely, and save both consumers and society literally millions of dollars; if people were able to make informed decisions on the lawyers they hire.

(continuation)

- A few years later, I started interviewing lawyers for someone to represent me at the 5 year review, I talked to around 12 in all. I showed all the lawyers the legal seperation agreement. None of them were as optimistic as Goldin that the wording of the alimoney clause would not hurt me at the 5 year review, some thought it would be interpreted to mean alimoney should continue indefinitely if conditions had not changed



- Therefore I filed a complaint with the Committee on Professional Standards.

This process basically consists of the Committee taking a nmbr of written statements from me and from Goldin (there isn't really an investigation, they just take statements)



- Here are the lies Goldin wrote to the Committee :

- Goldin wrote that he met with the Judge 5 times. Goldin told me of just 2 meetings. He was lying in trying to convey that he put forth more of an effort than he actually did. I wrote the Judge about this, and numerous other questions on the case; and the Judge wrote back that he didnot remember a single thing about the case; it seems pretty unlikely there can be 5 meetings on a case, with no memory at all of it. I will mention Goldin worded this lie in a technically sneaky way, he actually wrote that there were 5 meetings with the Judge written on his calendar; so this way it could be interpreted literally in such a way that its not technically a lie (he could have just written the Judge's name on a calender 5 times and then technically his statement is true).

- Goldin wrote more than once to the Committee on Professional Ethics that he didnot tell me that alimoney would likely be for about half the length of the marraige; when in reality he told me that over and over again, many times. Thats what he constantly told me.

- Goldin wrote that he frequently told me that my case was a good candidate for lifetime maintenance. Thats the exact opposite of the truth, the reality is he consistantly adviced me that alimoney would likely be assigned for just half the length of the marraige (3 to 5 years). This was actually a really stupid unneccessary lie by Goldin. Stupid because all the many lawyers I have talked to have said that a judge is not going to assign lifetime maintenance from a short term marraige when I still have 20 years left to work and I'm not rich. Its just not going to happen. I've also studied legal precedents for my case, to know this is true. So everyone knows this, yet Goldin for some reason felt he needed to tell this lie ? Its unneccessary cause all he had to write to the Committee is that his interpretation of the wording of the agreement is it would not hurt me. Thats all he had to say, and that is what he told me; saying that would have been more legitimate than the lies he told.

So I think with this lie, beyond the lie, anyone considering hiring Goldin should consider how the lack of logical reasoning this lie shows, and wonder if in his lawyer work he shows a similar lack of reasoning ability.

(continution)

Here's a narrative of my experiences with Goldin :

- There was just 1 meeting with the 4 of us (my ex and I and our lawyers). I pushed and pushed to try to get more, but they never happened. Goldin claimed that her lawyer, Tom Snyder, refused any other 4 way meetings. Obviously this left me feeling disenfranchised

- There were just a handful of conversations between Goldin and Snyder. Every week I hounded Goldin, asked what was going on, gave him things to mail to Snyder or to read word for word over the phone to him, but virtually nothing happened. Goldin claimed Snyder almost never returned his calls, etc., but my ex said Snyder told her Goldin told Snyder that I was unwilling to do anything, which was totally false, I was the one pushing every week to get something to happen. So it appears possible one or both of the lawyers was lying on this

- Finally in frustration I filed to get the case before a judge

- There were 2 brief meetings with the Judge, which I was not allowed to participate in

- Goldin told me the Judge said alimoney would be 40% of my gross income (around 75% of my net income) for 5 years, then reviewed after 5 years to determine whether it should be continued or modified or ended. My wife had a disability, which may or may not improve over time, which was the reason for the alimoney

- Snyder wrote up the agreement from this direction. I was not comfortable with the wording, which seemed to be saying if no conditions changed, alimoney would continue after the 5 years.

- Goldin assured me not to worry, that it was extremely likely alimoney would end in 5 years, given the short length of the marraige (my wife left the marraige after 7 years); and this wording would not hurt me.

- Goldin also assured me that if this was brought to trial, his billing would skyrocket, and assured me the judge would order me to pay all of Snyder's billing, as my wife didnot have much money to pay him. Since taking on all that legal billing could have driven me into bankruptcy, given the alimoney amount, and given that the agreement also called for me to take on all debt from the marraige; I agreed to sign this legal seperation agreement.

(Split into several parts due to the 4000 char limit)



Goldin was my lawyer for my legal seperation case.

I had to file charges against him with the Committee on Professional Standards (which is a committee of 18 lawyers and 3 non-lawyers that look into charges filed against lawyers), due to my signing the legal seperation agreement based on what he told me it meant; when it turned out numerous other lawyers I showed the agreement to afterwards had a different interpretation of it than Goldin did

In his written statements to the Committee on Professional Standards, he told some very blatent, very brazen lies, as well as 1 very stupid unneccessary lie.



I will expand upon these points, and make a few others, below :



First a couple of brief points; then will go to the major issues against him

- His billing was reasonable, in the respect that he didnot charge me for every little brief call.

- His office is a total mess, his desk a huge pile of papers. When I met with him, and he needed to get papers on my case, he looked for them in this pile on the desk

- The picture on the website is old, he doesnot have black hair now, he has white hair now. How important that is is open to interpretation, some might say it shows either carelessness or dishonesty

- He seems to go thru secretaries very quickly, for whatever reason. He had several in the time I knew him