Mark was my defense attorney. The results of the hearing were about what I expected, not favorable. However, after thinking everything over for 10 days, I don't believe he actually did an effective job. As preparations for the hearing proceeded, I didn't get a sense he was actually on my side, but... came more from a prosecutor viewpoint...and I wasn't sure he grasped the complexity of the matter. When I had questions, a couple answers he gave made me wonder if he had actually read my declaration. He seemed mainly focused on the legal aspect, not the human aspect. He wasn't forthcoming with information...I had to ask questions to get answers to what seemed basic information he should just know to inform me. I didn't get to meet him until just a few minutes before my hearing which seemed strange to not have at least a brief meeting in person before a hearing to make sure the case, facts, and strategy were understood. That said, once I met him, he was friendly, seemed interested and concerned. At the hearing, the judge had not read my or the other party's declarations and exhibits yet. Both he and the judge had a casual, joking approach to that, as if it was no big deal. Mark suggested it should only take 20 minutes which was dismaying because I knew it was not possible to give due review in only 20 minutes. But the judge consequently took only a 20 minute recess. I found that insensitive. It should be encouraged to give due process...as citizens we're expected to respect the Court, but to not review our submissions adequately seems disrespectful to us. When court resumed, it was clear that neither the judge nor Mark had solid grip on the content of my declaration and exhibits. He whispered to me asking me if what the other party said was true and I had to tell him, no, proof is in my declaration which he had to shuffle through to find. His whispering to me during the hearing was distracting and I missed some things the judge and my opponent said. Also, he seemed to change strategy on the fly and had a bit of deer-in-headlights reaction. It seemed it would have been more appropriate to ask the judge for a pause in order to run things by me. His closing argument wasn't quite accurate, but it wasn't bad. It seemed also that should have been something he and I decided upfront. But I was naive. That said, he did respond quickly to my initial inquiry when time was short to acquire representation, and he let me put in my statement what I felt was important. However, after consulting with a different attorney about appeal possibilities, it is clear he should have advised against a few statements I made as I was too honest for my own good. Also, he didn't actually tell me what the full criteria was for the thing I was accused of (and neither did the judge). After consulting with this other attorney, it seems he missed a few things that were important technically. So, overall, I felt he did not spend adequate effort, but I was told by a couple other attorneys that in this particular matter the court and lawyers tend to treat them like cranking out hotcakes in a kitchen...which is unfortunate. My opponent did not have representation, and I believe I would have done better without any myself, truly. I hope not to have another legal matter in my life, but I would use a different attorney next time. I'm surprised the reviews here lean so heavily toward 5 stars. That said, I don't think he is a bad guy, just not that effective for me and I feel I didn't get my money's worth.

Mark was difficult to work with. Although the outcome of my case was good, working with him was a challenge in of itself. He was unresponsive and uncommunicative about what was going on, what to expect, and seemed arrogant. He seemed to be disliked by the court staff and that made things difficult ...for me and himself.