Law & Mediation Office of George Richardson

Choosing an attorney is a particularly challenging if you have never done it before and trying to find someone worthy of the expense (!!!) during a difficult and emotional time is even more daunting. During my amicable divorce George was both professional and thoughtful with his advice and guidance through the process. He was organized, direct and yet gentle with sensitive subjects. He helped me stay focused on what was important and yet allow me to talk through issues that needed discussion. I’d highly recommend having a conversation with him.

1. Mr. George Richardson the arbitrating attorney who was a disservice to me on July 17^th, 2012 did not address me correctly at our first encounter using a name that was unrecognizable to me, and he did not apologize.
2. Arbitrator did not come prepared to the arbitration meeting with knowledge of my side of the case.
3. Arbitrator did not review my statement before the meeting.
4. Arbitrator claimed he did not receive my statement beforehand, but I had emailed it 4 days prior to the meeting and 3 days prior to when my ex-​husband (opponent) sent his.
5. Arbitrator read the opposing party’s statement and was able to process and internalize opposing party’s statement up to over 21 hours in advance of the meeting.
6. Arbitrator sped read 6 outlined pages of my statement at the meeting in under 2 minutes and did not have or make time to process my side of the case.
7. Arbitrator did not have background information about what the USA Water Polo Junior Olympics is, its significance as a national event, and its importance to my daughter to appear in them which contributes a vital element to my side of the case.
8. Arbitrator did not verbalize any understanding that my daughter made plans to appear in Junior Olympics in October 2011 and that opposing party’s conflicting plan to my daughter’s plan was made 5 months later in March 2012.
9. Arbitrator did not ask to see my divorce agreement which explains child custody arrangements.
10. Arbitrator did not review or read any part of my divorce agreement.
11. Arbitrator did not open, even for the sake of courtesy, a sealed letter from my daughter explaining her desires regarding the case.
12. Arbitrator did not preface his ruling with any explanations or stated reasons which make it unclear what he based his ruling on.
13. Arbitrator’s ruling did not «take into account the best interests of the children» as stipulated in the divorce agreement.
14. Arbitrator’s ruling did not «take into account the children’s desires» as stipulated in the divorce agreement.
15. Arbitrator took no interest in my carefully arranged folder containing all my various documents to support my case.
16. Arbitrator did not desire to handle documents; His tactic was to «talk» things out.
17. Arbitrator did not review documents unless shown for/​to him.
18. Arbitrator did not seek evidence to back up my opponent’s claims.
19. Arbitrator did not caution my opponent that the action of taking children out of state for indefinite periods of time without consent from the other parent invites similar negative reciprocation.
20. Arbitrator’s ruling was based on his opinion of what he deemed more important and not based on what is outlined in the divorce agreement.
21. Arbitrator did not explain the meaning of his ruling, but his ruling accepts and makes permissible a parent to take children of joint physical custody out of state for an indefinite period of time without the other parent’s consent and without taking into account the children’s desires which is contrary to what is written in the divorce agreement.
22. Arbitrator used unprofessional, judgmental and undermining phrases: «It’s [my decision to choose money or to hear the arbitrator’s ruling] like playing poker»; «You can’t have your cake and eat it too»; «That’s [the choice to take money and to not hear the ruling] a no brainer»; and «[my husband’s career] isn’t going to pay a lot of money.»
In conclusion, I felt immediately that George Richardson was unprepared, lacked attention and interest to detail, biased to one side, had inappropriate and unprofessional comments especially «that’s a no brainer» to taking money, and disinterested in fully understanding equally both sides of the case.
My case is not about taking money and being bought off. The case is about principle and what’s legal: Can a parent take children of joint physical custody out of state for an indefinite period of time without the other parent’s consent and without taking into account the children’s desires which is contrary to what is written in the divorce agreement? According to the arbitrator’s ruling, the answer is yes. The arbitrator did not preface his ruling with any explanations or stated reasons which make it unclear what he based his ruling on.
My daughter spent time to try and communicate to the arbitrator through her sealed letter especially written for him. Even if the arbitrator does not take into consider the wishes of a child, the centerpiece of the case, have the decent courtesy to open the sealed letter to let a girl know that her thoughts are acknowledged. The arbitrator did not care to know the wishes of my daughter. Not only did the arbitrator not ask to see or know the contents of the divorce agreement, but the arbitrator surely did not rule by «taking into account the best interests of the children, and where possible, the children’s desires» as it is stipulated in the divorce agreement.