I wrote a long post yesterday titled "Trouble in the Jackson County Courts."
I described my observations and impressions from an eight day trial. The RISE Law Group in Medford was the defendant in a case regarding a lawyer's fiduciary duty, reasonable fees, billing practices, collection practices against a client's unpaid bill, motions to recuse judges, and proportional activity by an attorney given the totality of the situation.
I received a comment yesterday evening. From the content I am confident it was written by the RISE partners Jamie Hazlett and Maryanne Pitcher and intended for publication. It is presented verbatim.
 |
| Maryanne Pitcher and Jamie Hazlett, from their Facebook page |
The RISE Law Group responds:
HAPPY INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY!
There is so much left out of this slanted and inaccurate piece but we thought it important to address a few pieces of context. First, expect that our response articles will be substantiated by transcripts, audio from Court proceedings, and court filings. (These are the same documents we offered to provide to Mr. Sage to give him an accurate and more well-rounded basis for his "opinion". He did not take us up on our offer). Second, we never raised with Peter Sage our practice of "recusing judges" because it is not at the forefront of the work we do for our clients, nor Ms. Orozco's matter, which is discussed in some part in this article. So we can only assume that Mr. Sage has made this the focus based on conversations with the Jackson County Judges and court staff, who have certainly taken offense to us using this accepted practice, with the approval of our clients. (In fact, as has been widely covered by the Mail Tribune, Rise Law Group was just one of many attorneys, including the Jackson County DA's office who blanket recused a particular judge. Notably the DA's office was not lambasted for causing chaos in the Court's scheduling, even though this Judge had to immediately switch dockets to accommodate their request. See https://www.yahoo.com/now/judge-fights-firms-attempt-recuse-132600238.html ) Mr. Sage also seems singularly focused on Maryanne Pitcher (despite the fact that Ms. Hazlett handled the majority of the trial and spoke to Mr. Sage at length and Maryanne Pitcher met Mr. Sage on one occasion and was a participant in one phone conversation). This is suggestive of a ulterior purpose (more to come.....) At Rise Law Group we are a team, Maryanne Pitcher and Jamie Hazlett. To the extent that Mr. Sage misquotes Ms. Pitcher regarding "her" comments about him being "biased and a misogynist":
It was, in fact, Ms. Hazlett who alluded to misogyny and the context of the conversation went something like this:
Peter Sage: Well you guys aren't well liked. You should be nicer get along better with your peers.
Jamie Hazlett: "Would that even be a consideration if we were male attorneys? Some people would interpret that as misogynistic?"
Peter Sage: "I'm not a misogynist, I'm married to a woman, an Asian woman".
Second part of the conversation, after Mr. Sage expressed his views on Rise Law Group prior to the conclusion of the trial:
JLH: Urges Mr. Sage to reserve judgment on us based on one disgruntled client's opinion (who he had already opined was not credible) and speak with some of our clients about our approach and the amazing results we get.
Peter Sage: "Well I'm sure I could do that and they will say you are sweethearts right?"
Did we ever call Mr. Sage a misogynist or biased? NO. Is a man who would suggest that women should be "nicer" in order to be a better lawyer, or suggest that we should "apologize" for our success and that we are paid well for it, or who somehow believes it would be a compliment to call a professional a "sweetheart" a "misogynist"? Read our articles to come and make your own judgment....
24 comments:
Ladies, I hear you. He has admitted that he doesn't understand women. Maybe he never will; kinda seems hopeless at this point. He can be awkward, insulting and clueless. As I recall, he also suggested in one of his blogs that racial minorities act nicer, like a salesperson, about civil rights, discrimination, equal opportunities, etc.
In certain ways, he is an unapologetic and incorrigible throwback. Most of his readers are like him: white, male, relatively affluent and very privileged. It is what it is.
What is confusing is that previously he wrote that he was married to a judge.
Don't feel too bad. He has great contempt for President Biden also, so you are in good company.
Remember, March is Women's HERstory Month
One of my teachers once said if you throw a shoe into a dark alley and you hear a cat scream, you learn two things: 1. there's a cat and; 2. you hit it.
I suspect your "modest" 2,000 readership is more influential in local matters than the numbers might suggest. (A certain former Jackson County Circuit Judge would agree). Otherwise why would they take the time to write a rebuttal, especially since it's not billable.
What strikes me about their response is the accusatory tone. They see themselves as the victim of your misrepresentation which implies you are either lazy, incompetent, nefarious or some blend of all three.
Then your first comment above accuses you of being tone-deaf on women's issues or worse.
What I took away from your initial essay is that Rise is a for-profit business that leverages all of the angles of the legal system to enrich themselves. What they do isn't illegal, or even morally wrong, and you didn't imply it was. It's Capitalism. You simply shed light on a system. From what I can tell, you picked a trial to watch and reported facts as you saw them. That it was less than flattering to Rise shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who has read a Grisham novel. Of course lawyers aren't the only ones who profit from being client advocates. Financial Brokers do it too.
In his book True Paradox, Law professor David Skeel describes how we long for justice and fairness, but laws are written, enforced and adjudicated by imperfect people (and a labyrinth legal system). We don't have a better system, but we should always strive to make it better.
As I read Peter’s blog yesterday, I didn’t get the impression he was judging women. He was observing their behavior and billing practices. Anything to add to their fees was fair game. Charge, charge, and overcharge no matter whether the clients can pay or not. They have ways of collecting.
It appears that this firm has a game plan of drawing out cases, so as to increase time spent and thus their fees. The result is that several judges refuse to hear their cases. That tells you something.
I think Peter did a service for anyone thinking of using this firm. Call it a warning.
Let’s be explicit. At the 14 consolidated cases (referred to in the link) hearing brought by RISE to recuse Judge Orr in November 2022, DA Heckert testified that the reasons the DA recused Judge Orr was because he was biased in favor of criminal defendants and didn’t follow Oregon law. The DAs blanket recusal was granted by the Presiding Judge without the need for filing affidavits in individual cases. RISE did not get the same treatment.
Yes, let’s see the transcripts.
The same day RISE lost this case it also had a a federal judge recommend it pay over $145,000 in attorney fees in an employment law case that it lost after being sued by its own employee.
The takeaway for me was that if female lawyers accuse a critic of being misogynistic for criticizing them, they must not have a very compelling rebuttal.
That's my take, too.
If you don't have facts, pound the table.
Thanks again, Peter.
"You can't criticize me because I'm a female, and if you criticize me, then it's evidence that you hate women".
Family law attorneys are like used car salesmen. They are working in the lowest level of the profession.
Maryann Pitcher has only been a licensed attorney for four years (since 10/2018). What she lacks in skills, she makes-up for with her "bull in a china shop" routine. It's little wonder that she needs to "judge shop".
Q: How many feminists does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: That’s not funny!
You mean the FemaNazis.
Their gender should be irrelevant. Let's hear a lawyer joke.
Using gender as a shield to avoid accountability not only undermines the seriousness of genuine issues related to discrimination but also tarnishes the reputation of those who genuinely advocate for equality.
It's essential to address this behavior directly and emphasize that unethical conduct is unacceptable regardless of gender. Encouraging open and honest dialogue about professional standards and behavior can help ensure a fair and respectful work environment for everyone involved.
As a woman who has faced my fair share of challenges in the political arena, I find it deeply concerning when individuals resort to using gender as a shield to deflect from their own misdeeds. It is a disservice to genuine advocates for gender equality and undermines the progress we have made in breaking down barriers for women in all fields.
Let me be clear: as a female leader, I have seen no evidence of misogyny in this context. Any attempts to defend unethical behavior by invoking gender are not only transparent but also damaging to the cause of equality. It is embarrassing for those individuals to resort to such tactics.
Instead of hiding behind false claims of discrimination, we must confront unethical conduct directly and hold individuals accountable for their actions. Upholding professional standards and fostering a culture of integrity benefits everyone, regardless of gender. Let us not allow the important conversation about equality to be derailed by those who seek to evade responsibility.
While Rise Law Group's actions may tarnish our gender, let's draw inspiration from women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Angela Merkel, and Jane Goodall, who embody integrity and resilience. Let's strive to emulate their legacy as we work towards a brighter future for all.
"JLH: Urges Mr. Sage to reserve judgment on us based on one disgruntled client's opinion (who he had already opined was not credible) and speak with some of our clients about our approach and the amazing results we get"
Truly hilarious. Collectively, their clients despise them.
Someone asked for a lawyer joke:
How many lawyers does it take to change a light bulb?
Such number as may be deemed necessary to perform the stated task in a timely and efficient manner within the strictures of the following agreement: Whereas the party of the first part, also known as "Lawyer", and the party of the second part, also known as "Light Bulb", do hereby and forthwith agree to a transaction wherein the party of the second part (Light Bulb) shall be removed from the current position as a result of failure to perform previously agreed upon duties, i. e., the lighting, elucidation, and otherwise illumination of the area ranging from the front (north) door, through the entryway, terminating at an area just inside the primary living area, demarcated by the beginning of the carpet, any spillover illumination being at the option of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and not required by the aforementioned agreement between the parties.
The aforementioned removal transaction shall include, but not be limited to, the following steps:
1.) The party of the first part (Lawyer) shall, with or without elevation at his option, by means of a chair, stepstool, ladder or any other means of elevation, grasp the party of the second part (Light Bulb) and rotate the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a counter-clockwise direction, this point being non-negotiable.
2.) Upon reaching a point where the party of the second part (Light Bulb) becomes separated from the party of the third part ("Receptacle"), the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of disposing of the party of the second part (Light Bulb) in a manner consistent with all applicable state, local and federal statutes.
3.) Once separation and disposal have been achieved, the party of the first part (Lawyer) shall have the option of beginning installation of the party of the fourth part ("New Light Bulb"). This installation shall occur in a manner consistent with the reverse of the procedures described in step one of this self-same document, being careful to note that the rotation should occur in a clockwise direction, this point also being non-negotiable.
Note: The above described steps may be performed, at the option of the party of the first part (Lawyer), by any or all persons authorized by him, the objective being to produce the most possible revenue for the party of the fifth part, also known as "Partnership."
Feminists can be of any gender. There was no implication of relevance.
A 40 year old attorney was questioning St. Peter as to why his life on earth had ended at such a young age. St.Peters reply, “ According to your billed hours you are 96”
They have no talent so they counter the lack with crying victim, countless lies and arrogance. When their deeds are exposed they scream louder to drown out the truth and to distract the conversation.
Oh my! Now is it true that Maryanne Pitcher when asked in court, where she swore to tell the truth, what law firms she worked at previous or in California replied she couldn't remember? How would that be possible? What is really mind blowing is an lawyer lying under oath.
The blogger certainly is allowed to have opinions. Writing or saying sexist and inappropriate things is not acceptable. Apparently many readers (his peers) don't get the difference, as usual.
Are you or were you married to a judge?
I have never been married to a judge. I have never said I was.
The trial lasted eight days. I describe evidence presented there, evidence subject to cross examination. The quotes and language attributed to RISE partners came from RISE testimony.
RISE entered into the record the statement by Lynn Myrick, that Maryanne Pitcher was the "worst nightmare." Not me. Not the plaintiff. RISE.
RISE partner Maryanne Pitcher acknowledged several times in her closing argument that they were unpopular. She said it was because other firms were outmatched and did not like to go to court against them and because other firms billed more than them. I saw no evidence presented that those are the reasons. I heard lots of testimony that there were other reasons for their unpopularity, including that they made needless motions, needless objections, needless complications, all of which raised costs for everyone. That is not rumor or reputation. That is what was presented in court in front of me.
I purchased a tape recording of the entire trial, separated into 5-minute segments. I was able to review word by word what I heard and what I quoted.
Hahahaha! That's a great joke, thanks for sharing
Agreed!
Post a Comment