Mario Alexis Joseph

Custody of the kids, maximum support, two houses and your ex was responsible for the debt. I recall the case well. I am so happy that I was given a chance to help. Thank you!

I am sorry that you feel this way and would like to provide more details for Avvo users, but ethically cannot. However, based solely on the information that you provided above, I hope this helps: Judges heavily consider historical income when calculating support obligations, not just recent unemployment (even if legitimate, which it often is not). Judges routinely impute income where a determination is made of underemployment or unemployment, even if not 'recent'. It is not a function of being 'railroaded', but of too many parties who will do anything to avoid paying their full support obligation. If a party wants to prove that their sudden decrease in income is bona fide and long term, s/he needs to proceed to trial with reliable evidence. The outcome of (expensive) trials cannot be guaranteed, and a historically monied spouse could well lose at trial and be directed to pay the legal fees of the other party. Were you (i) financially able to pay for an expensive trial with (ii) an unknown outcome for which you (iii) would be required to pay my counsel fees AND (iv) perhaps your spouse's attorney, while (v) able to produce evidence that your then-recent unemployment was bona fide? Was your purported unemployment bona fide and consistent with your online vocational profiles such as LinkedIn? Please consider that the attorney who you retained after me, perhaps overpromised and underdelivered. Parties have opportunities to secure a second (and third, etc) opinion before entered into a settlement agreement, and judges routinely ask those parties whether they (i) understand the settlement terms, (ii) accept them voluntarily, and (iii) are satisfied with their counsel. I invite you to post a copy of the transcript from that day. I invite you to post a comparison of what your settled support obligation was, versus what it would have been after trial had you lost. I also invite you to reconsider your negative review of me. Lastly, I work long hours and oftentimes weekends to go the extra mile for my clients. It is not a crime, unethical or immoral for me to require payment for my services, and any professional is well within their right to tell a client that they should hire someone else if they want to engage in a course of conduct that they cannot afford to pay for (especially when they are likely to lose). In fact, it is the attorneys who happily take money to engage in losing propositions who you should call 'sleazy' and 'incompetent', NOT the attorneys who very strongly counsel you against it.