Robert Lewis Schibel

Robert Schibel

This review was written by Shawn Ras, a Respondent who was the subject of a Motion by Robert Schibel to Withdraw from his case based on lack of communication, threats and failure to pay his fees. Ras is under a restraining order for domestic violence and on 6/23/23 the Court agreed that there was a complete breakdown of communication based upon emotional outbursts of Mr. Ras – even telling Mr. Ras that he was emotionally unstable - and that Mr. Ras had failed to complete and abide by his retainer agreement and thus, Mr. Schibel’s request was granted. From 4/2022 until 6/2023, Mr. Schibel was successful in obtaining for Ras 50% physical custody of his minor child (after a previous order that he have none), and no child support/spousal support or attorney’s fees were ever awarded against Mr. Ras during that representation. Yet, Mr. Ras was extremely difficult to work with and needlessly argumentative, at times demanding that Mr. Schibel seek orders that are illegal. On several occasions, Mr. Ras, with no explanation, didn’t show up for scheduled meetings. He also failed for several months, to keep this office informed of a current mailing address despite repeated requests. Mr. Ras claims that he was “shocked to discover that Robert Schibel charged ‘exorbitant’ fees for their [sic] services.” This is nonsense. After having ample opportunity to read them, Mr. Ras twice signed retainer letters (he had two different matters) detailing the rates charged by this office. Mr. Ras admitted in court that he had received monthly statements from Mr. Schibel, and at no time during his representation did Mr. Ras ever complain about any of the statements which were sent . It was only after Mr. Schibel filed his request to be removed from the case that Mr. Ras complained about the billings he had received. Mr. Ras was found not to have kept his financial promises to pay his ongoing legal fees . The Court was concerned with the various threats that Mr. Ras made against Mr. Schibel after Mr. Schibel filed his request to withdraw. Mr. Ras in a sworn declaration even indicated that he was prepared to represent himself in the case and to go forward with his July 12, 2023 hearing. At the suggestion of Mr. Schibel, the Court continued Mr. Ras’s hearing into August to give him time to either prepare or find new counsel. During the representation of Mr. Ras by Mr. Schibel, Ras frequently indicated his appreciation for Schibel's efforts and for the results obtained, writing a glowing, positive Google review. Now, apparently out of spite, he has deleted that review and replaced it with a tirade that is full of inaccuracies and distortions, painting himself as an innocent victim and Mr. Schibel as some greedy, evil monster. Nothing could be further from the truth! At the time of the hearing on June 22, 2023 Mr. Ras owed thousands of dollars in attorney fees to Mr. Schibel without any efforts made to pay the same. If Mr. Ras is as upset with Mr. Schibel’s services as he now claims, why did he demand that Mr. Schibel continue to represent him at a scheduled July 12, 2023 hearing? Mr. Ras was unable to explain this contradiction to the Court on June 22, 2023. Because of Mr. Ras’s threats and accusations, his failures to communicate, and failure to keep his account current, the attorney-client relationship had broken down and when that happens, attorneys have the right (and, in fact the obligation) to formally sever the relationship. It is not a “betrayal” nor is it unprofessional, as Mr. Ras claims; rather, it is exactly the opposite, and Mr. Schibel’s motion to be relieved as counsel was made to protect Mr. Ras’s interests as well as those of the firm.