Damir Anver Kouliev

This person claims to support clients with family law and TROs in Hawaii, so I came forward with detailed documentation showing nearly nine years of coercive control, abusive litigation, and evidence of ongoing harm—including a PTSD diagnosis and recent incidents as recent as May 2025. I sought help ...with an abusive litigation form, a visitation change request due to safety concerns, and a potential restraining order against a third party involved. Instead of addressing the evidence or my immediate legal needs, he dismissed the entire situation, telling me to "let it go." He claimed the judge wouldn’t see any of it—even recent misrepresentations, threats, and safety concerns—as abuse or harassment, despite Hawaii’s recognition of coercive control and abusive litigation. When I explained how I was served secretly via email, unlike in the past, and never properly informed, he blamed me for not checking my email rather than acknowledging the deceptive nature of how I was served. His responses were victim-blaming and uninformed. Despite Hawaii being a trauma-informed state, he is not trauma informed, He repeatedly interrupted me, told me to “calm down” and “take a breath,” and dismissed what I shared—gun threats, suicidal behavior, and documented abuse patterns—as irrelevant or too focused on the past. But presenting a pattern is exactly what’s required under Hawaii law to show coercive control. He ignored the reality that my filings were for protection and treated them as if they were on par with my abuser’s retaliatory motions, saying, “Oh, you’re filing motions now too?” I explained my concern that my abuser may file again, as he has in the past—even just weeks ago—and asked how I could prepare. His response was to avoid the issue entirely: “Cross that bridge when you get there.” But preparing for predictable retaliation is not hypothetical—it’s strategic legal planning, especially in domestic abuse cases. I also shared disturbing evidence: a welfare check triggered by safety concerns, a threatening image with a red X over my heart sent by a family member involved in the case, unwanted certified letters, and harassing messages. His response remained unchanged: “Let it go. That judge won’t consider it harassment.” He mentioned that he answered my call on a Sunday and reviewed things quickly—which I acknowledged and appreciated. But ultimately, his review meant nothing when his only advice was to minimize, gaslight, and invalidate the very real legal and emotional trauma I’ve faced. This is exactly how victims get retraumatized in family court—by people who deny the abuse, ignore laws that protect abuse victims, and act as if the burden of proof is the problem, rather than the abuse itself. If you’re dealing with parking tickets, he might be sufficient. But if you’re a survivor trying to navigate coercive control, abusive litigation, or a TRO in Hawaii, this is not the attorney for you. He is not trauma-informed, and his dismissive attitude is dangerous for abuse victims seeking safety and legal clarity.