Rudas represented me in a criminal matter in which i discovered after the trial was over and right of appeal time had expired that she had a relationship with the alleged victim. It is no wonder that she insisted that this 'victim' not be called as a witness in the case. against my pleading. She also previously represented the owner of a restaurant in a divorce case whose son (and manager of the restaurant) was a key witness. Rudas remains a frequent patron of this restaurant and remains friends with the family. She should have recused herself from this case upon initial client interview. I firmly believe that the outcome would have been favorable to me if more of the truth had been permitted to be brought forth at the trial. There is far more to comment upon but this forum does not lend enough space.