Colleen Rebecca Clay

I retained this attorney for a King County CIR dissolution involving significant assets and complex financials. Over 18 months and approximately $130,000 in fees, my experience was one of fighting my own attorney rather than having an advocate in my corner. I changed counsel before the case concluded.... She sent a resignation letter because I sought a second opinion. During mediation I was uncomfortable with a proposed settlement and consulted independent attorneys. She found this so offensive she sent me a formal resignation letter. That a client exercising basic due diligence triggered a resignation threat speaks directly to her suitability for complex cases where clients are necessarily engaged and questioning. Unprepared at mediation in a fundamental way. We engaged a private mediator for a case with significant financial complexity. During the session the mediator asked her directly: "Did you calculate the income? Did you consider the passive income? Why not?" She had no adequate response. Having a privately retained mediator visibly frustrated by your attorney's lack of basic preparation is a failure that cannot be explained away. Argued with her own client instead of opposing counsel. On multiple occasions I advanced well-reasoned positions only to have her immediately push back without engaging the substance. After I explained my reasoning she would ultimately agree and act on my instructions — work that was properly hers. On one significant issue — a mathematical discrepancy in the agreed asset split — she refused to contact opposing counsel to resolve it. I resolved it myself by calling the opposing party directly. He agreed immediately and without resistance. My attorney had refused to make that call. No strategic framework. Despite requesting a case strategy and preparation timeline repeatedly, none was produced. Issues were handled in isolation — custody, financial settlement, and child support addressed sequentially rather than as an integrated negotiating strategy — eliminating the leverage each resolved issue could have provided in subsequent negotiations. By the time resolution became necessary we were wholly unprepared for trial, removing any meaningful alternative to settlement regardless of terms. Recommended a GAL she had no direct experience with. She recommended a Guardian ad Litem she had not previously worked with. That GAL produced a report containing material factual errors. When I raised concerns and noted the GAL had one-star reviews from independent sources, she dismissed this saying only people with grievances post reviews. I will let the irony of that statement stand without further comment. Client advocacy replaced by personal philosophy. This attorney and the firm owner consistently substituted their own views about appropriate outcomes for zealous representation of my interests. When I challenged an unreasonable concession I was told "it's about your kids." When I told her directly to practice law and not act as a family therapist, both she and the firm owner took offense. The firm repeatedly suggested I should feel proud to be providing for my children — while I had already transferred more than half my assets to the other party and was paying $130,000 in legal fees. Phone only, fully remote. Every appointment across 18 months was conducted by telephone. She never appeared on video. In a complex high-stakes dissolution requiring genuine dialogue and collaborative strategy, this format consistently impeded productive communication.