117 Client Reviews
Showing 81 - 85 of 117 reviews
Posted by anonymous | May 20, 2018
Extremely KNOWLEDGEABLE
I would "ABSOLUTELY RECOMMEND" this attorney! I had several issues and he clarified each issue and broke down the legal terminology for every one of them. He was very honest and straight to the point. I am thankful and definitely blessed to have crossed paths with Mr. Tischhauser. 05/18/2018
Posted by anonymous | May 16, 2018
Phone Call
Mr. Tischhauser spent a great deal of time answering questions for me with patience and knowledge that exceeded my expectations. He was very responsive in making sure his points are clearly understood.
Posted by anonymous | May 06, 2018
Very egotistical and rude.
This lawyer has a bad attitude and loves to make assumptions without asking questions or seeing evidence. He was very belittling and treated me as if I were an uneducated peasant in his eyes. I am highly educated, with more degrees than he has. I am not one to sit there and let anyone talk down to me...
As per the course - this is yet another 1 start review from angry pro-se litigant that only wants to be told what they want to hear, that they are entitled to whatever relief they want because they declare victim status, and anyone that tries to educate or inform the otherwise just gets lashed out at and attacked. This poster omits in the the review - that she is involved in long standing litigation with what she claims started a fraudulent eviction lawsuit, against her, with a second lawsuit for stalking charges filed AGAINST HER by the other party, that then extended into a social media battle and cyber-bullying campaign and now has escalated to retaliation in the from of "doxxing" and efforts to get each other fired, complaints to agencies like DCF, law enforcement, etc. The poster made vehemently clear that she believed that even a restraining order will not stop the other person as they will find a way around the Order and sought advice about "what to do now." The advice I provided, as the only lawyer actually taking the time to respond to her inquiry, was simple. That are 3 primary options, (1) find a means to de-escalate the controversy including staying off all social media including Facebook (2) be ready to spend a lot of money litigating with such a person or (3) simply accept that this person is going to engage in the abuse and simply learn to deal with it until they get tired or move on. The poster insisted that she would not stay off of social media, as it was needed for her job as a teacher and that she would not simply deal with the drama until the the other person moved on. She then insisted that there WAS a "door 4" where one could simply file a "motion to ____ or _____" as the proper answer which she became angry and abusive when I disagreed. After exhaustive efforts to convince the poster there was no "door 4" on such a case, solely as a means of helping her make good legal decisions, the poster within 3 days of posting her initial question then claimed she RETAINED a lawyer that "took her case, " though oddly here is referenced as merely "consulted with", and he was going to doing to do this and that, claiming my advice was wrong and apparently "I am a poor excuse for a lawyer". As it now seems, the poster claims the magical solution provided by this phantom lawyer is a "cease and desist" letter, likely at some minimal expense. Supposedly the poster now believes the offender will be terrified into compliance by a "tough guy" lawyer letter, where she vehemently insisted that even an actual court ordered restraining order, enforceable by civil and criminal contempt, would be ignored and circumvented. Unfortunately, I'll bet on my almost 30 years of experience as a civil trial lawyer handling dozens and dozens of such combative defamation and cyber bullying cases that the reviewer will find that there is no door number 4.......and this case will continue to spin out of control, phantom lawyer or no. Sadly, this is what we lawyers get when we take the time to educate people rather than simply pander for business such a writing "cease and desist" letters. As the saying goes, you can lead the horse to water and all.....
Posted by anonymous | April 03, 2018
Disappointed!
No legal advice given during the free consultation. The free consultation referred to in this lawyer's promotions consists mainly of information about the structure of his attorney fees in the event he is retained by the prospective client, as well as, plenty of blame against the would-be client for...
This is an unfortunate misnomer in the legal realm, and for that I do apologize. The concept of a "free consultation" is ALWAYS intended to provide a free assessment of what services or remedies the lawyer can provide and the costs of same. In most other professions, the clients are changed for the office conference, to provide the same assessment and services. Unfortunately, many people erroneously assume that "free consultation" from private civil lawyers equals "free self help legal training" and are "disappointed" if they are not provided free education, training or information on how to fix their issues on their own if they choose not to hire a lawyer. No one would expect a plumber with a "free consultation" to provide free advice on how to fix a leak if a customer didn't want to to spend the money to hire a plumber, nor should one expect differently of any other professional. What they get is a free about what needs to be done and the cost. As to the notion of "blaming the client", there are many instances where we discuss HOW a client got into the position they are in, especially if it involves "self lawyering". While some people are offended at the notion of being told they made poor decisions, it is my view that as a lawyer, not as a cheerleader, that clients need to be provided an objective professional assessment of what role their decision making has had that lead to the need to end up hiring a lawyer to resolve the issue. While many lawyers pander to clients for retainers, and profit off what is often a self created victim mentality, my philosophy is that by candidly address such issues, clients will be better informed to avoid such mistakes in the future. Finally, the poster is correct, we do require proper and adequate identification of ALL clients, which does include social security number disclosure. Ironically, this is for various security reasons, of which one is to AVOID abuse of legal services to effect various ID theft scams, such where fake clients retain lawyers under false pretense for illegal means. What remains perplexing is that the very very few people that take issue with this seem oddly "ok" with that same information being in the hands of financial institutions, rental property management groups, insurance companies, and medical facilities where that same information is available to literally MILLIONS of strangers.
Posted by anonymous | March 31, 2018
Thank u
Love your responses needed a little more detail but need to set an appointment.