Nancy A Hass

Nancy Haas served as Guardian ad Litem in my family court case. I am writing this review based on my direct experience with her actions in that role. During her involvement, my child was denied contact with extended family, including cousins, aunts, and grandparents. Most disturbingly, my child ...was not allowed to see a terminally ill aunt who had played a significant role in helping raise her. This decision caused irreversible emotional harm to both my child and our family. Throughout the proceedings, Ms. Haas repeatedly questioned my mental fitness under oath despite having no medical or psychological qualifications and without any supporting evaluations. These statements were made multiple times in court and had serious consequences. Ms. Haas insisted on the use of a specific, closed network of therapists, evaluators, and testing providers, while refusing to allow other qualified professionals. In my experience, this resulted in unnecessary delays and substantial financial burden. I was also deeply concerned that multiple failed alcohol tests by the opposing party were not meaningfully addressed, while my own consistently negative drug tests appeared to be disregarded. As a parent, I found this alarming from a child-safety perspective. Overall, my experience was that Ms. Haas’s involvement escalated conflict, prolonged litigation, and placed extreme emotional and financial strain on a family already in crisis. My child appeared to be treated as part of a process rather than as a human being. Anyone considering this Guardian ad Litem should proceed with extreme caution and carefully evaluate whether this approach truly serves the best interests of their child.

I hired Nancy Hass in April 2017 and had to fire her on November of 2017 . I hired Nancy Hass to do a simple paternity agreement to settle a case in April 2017 . Seven 7 months from the day I hired her and my case was neither settled or completed. One thing was sure done, demand for payment of legal ...fees. I finally decided to fire Nancy Hass after I sent 7 emails in a period of one month requesting her to do specific things that were either not answered or addressed in a timely manner which let me no choice but to send her office a certified letter. Nancy Hass was a no show on a confirmed conference call ( Confirmed by her office ) and when her office contacted me the next morning in response to my email stating she was a NO SHOW and that I had been waiting for over an hour for her call , her assistant told me that instead Nancy Hass would call me sometime during the weekend , a call I never got either. During the time I hired Ms Hass , her office address and the address in her email signature was: The Hallmark of Hollywood 3800 South Ocean Drive Suite 214 . When I went in person to that address the door was closed, I looked inside to what seemed an empty office . The two times I met Nancy Hass in person was at the offices of Accountants ( Stief & Castro 12 S.E. 7TH Street Suite 601. Sometime in 2018, Nancy Hass changed her address on her email signature and Bar Association website to: 12 S.E. 7TH Street Suite 601, Fortlauderdale. However when the Broward County Sherif’s went to serve a subpoena to Nancy Hass to this address ( 12 S.E. 7 th Street, Suite 601 ) the court papers were not served because ‘ Per receptionist at location, respondent is not an employee or known at the location”. Nancy Hass states that her assistant "Ms. Mahaney resides outside of Miami-Dade County, outside of the jurisdiction, and, in fact, more than one hundred fifty (150) miles outside of the jurisdiction. These are reasonable grounds for me to believe, it seems that Nancy Hass does not have a physical office as where she and her assistants operate from every day, but rather a “ virtual office”. Nancy Hass charged me a whopping $400 an hour and her assistants a very expensive $120 an hour . The assistants email signature do not specify if they are paralegals. Despite over 7 emails , phone calls and in person requests to get a detail bill of Nancy Hass legal services , I never got a bill from Nancy Hass or her office during the 7 months Nancy Hass represented me. However, despite my multiple requests for a bill , I was required to make a second payment of $2500 ( in addition to my first payment of $2500 ) not knowing how and IF the first $2500 were used up. Quantum Meruit holds that a person should not be obliged to pay, nor should the other party receive, more than the value of the services exchanged. Under Chapter 4, Rules of Professional Conduct Preamble: A Lawyer’ Responsibility states the definition of Retainer as follows: A retainer is a sum of money paid to a lawyer to guarantee the lawyer’s future availability. A retainer is not a payment for past legal services and is not payments for future services. I have contacted the Bar Association.