|Association name||Position name||Duration|
|Oregon State Bar||Member||1981 - Present|
|Ohio State University Moritz College of Law||Law||JD - Juris Doctor||1980|
|Ohio State University||N/A||BA - Bachelor of Arts||N/A|
Posted by anonymous
I was a client of this lawyer, through the public defense program in Eugene. I found him to be unresponsive to the facts of my case, and initially unwilling to consult me on even the most basic facts of my case. He did not note or consider any of the information I provided to him (verbally) in our meeting. If I could afford representation I would not have given him even a first chance to meet with me. I would have left after speaking with him for about four minutes max, if I even considered hiring him in the first place. That is the truth. My experience with him was that bad and I found him to be that unprofessional. I could tell immediately he was going to ignore everything I said to him. It is not my job to coerce legal representation provided by the public into doing some work on my behalf. This attorney had taken on a responsibility to members of the public including me, and he is thus responsible for ensuring the American right to counsel as he can best provide it. He is either incompetent, completely, or flagrantly disrespecting his duty ethically as a public defender. Each individual he is assigned is equally entitled to counsel, and these are people that are coming to him with no other recourse. You would think that reality would elicit concern, but that was not my impression. My impression was that my counsel felt I did not deserve him or deserve counsel at all. If Anthony Rosta doesn't like his responsibility to the public, or can't provide counsel (competently) to every one of his clients, I believe he should quit. As his client it is my right to come forward with all the information I have about my charges and my case. My attorney should be willing to think creatively and problem solve about the facts of the case, both the facts I present and the facts the city presents. A part of representation is investigating and gathering facts. If an attorney won't go forward without proof or evidence of some kind from his clients, he should notify his clients immediately of that. Instead of immediately doing this with me and saving me some time he played mind-games, perhaps believing I was doing so as well. I experienced him as being image-obsessed, as if our meetings were somehow about him or what he would believe as an intelligent and experienced person and attorney. Yet it was not about him, and it didn't seem like he could see that. I was very disappointed with his counsel, and not only did he speak to me like a small child, he employed psychologically aggressive gaslighting techniques. Perhaps this is his way of communicating a different subtext I did not understand, but its effect was not to communicate anything at all except an unwillingness to work or see things from the clients' perspective. When someone has been through something upsetting or traumatic, the use of aggressive or confrontational techniques that directly negate the clients stated version of events can distort the truth from the client, or the ability of the client to recall correct information, which is not what you want. It is stressful to be repeatedly contradicted and denied when in the presence of your supposed ally who is supposed to be helping you further your interests. I have already thought I recalled information that was not correct at least twice because of the disrespectful manner in which I was engaged by two separate attorneys with Rosta and Connelly. I hope it is not this bad everywhere but I suspect it is. Without legal counsel I do not know how I will be able to proceed.
Claiming your profile is free and easy.
Highlight your practice areas, experience, and contact information.
Showcase your speaking engagements, awards, case histories, and more.