David N Goldin

Goldin was my lawyer for my legal seperation case.
I had to file charges against him with the Committee on Professional Standards due to my signing the legal seperation agreement based on what he told me it meant; when it turned out numerous other lawyers I showed the agreement to afterwards had a different interpretation of it than Goldin did
In his written statements to the Committee on Professional Standards, he told some very blatent, very brazen lies, as well as 1 very stupid unneccessary lie. :
First a few brief points; then will go to the major issues against him
— His billing was reasonable; His office is a total mess, totally disorganized; The picture on the website is old; he doesnot have black hair now, he has white hair now; He seems to go thru secretaries very quickly, for whatever reason. He had several in the time I knew him.
Here’s a narrative of my experiences with Goldin: — There was just 1 meeting with the 4 of us (my ex and I and our lawyers); and just a handful of breif conversations between Goldin and the other lawyer, call him S for short. Goldin claimed S almost never returned his calls, etc., but my ex said S told her Goldin told S that I was unwilling to do anything, which was totally false, I was the one pushing every week to get something to happen. So it appears possible one or both of the lawyers was lying on this
— Finally in frustration I filed to get the case before a judge
— There were 2 brief meetings with the Judge, which I was not allowed to participate in
— Goldin told me the Judge said alimoney would be 40% of my gross income (around 75% of my net income) for 5 years, then reviewed after 5 years to determine whether it should be continued or modified or ended. My wife had a disability, which may or may not improve over time, which was the reason for the alimoney
— S wrote up the agreement from this direction. I was not comfortable with the wording
— Goldin assured me not to worry, saying it was extremely likely alimoney would end in 5 years, given the short length of the marraige (my wife left the marraige after 7 years); and this wording would not hurt me.
— Goldin also assured me that if this was brought to trial, his billing would skyrocket, and assured me the judge would order me to pay all of S’s billing, as my wife didnot have much money to pay him. Since taking on all that legal billing could have driven me into bankruptcy, given the alimoney amount, and given that the agreement also called for me to take on all debt from the marraige; I agreed to sign this legal seperation agreement.
— A few years later, I started interviewing lawyers for someone to represent me at the 5 year review. I showed all the lawyers (around 12) the legal seperation agreement. None of them were as optimistic as Goldin that the wording of the alimoney clause would not hurt me at the 5 year review, some thought it would be interpreted to mean alimoney should continue indefinitely if conditions had not changed
— Therefore I filed a complaint with the Committee on Professional Standards.
This process basically consists of the Committee taking a nmbr of written statements from me and from Goldin (there isn’t really an investigation, they just take statements)
— Here are the lies Goldin wrote to the Committee :
— Goldin wrote that he met with the Judge 5 times. There were just 2 meetings.
— Goldin wrote more than once to the Committee on Professional Ethics that he didnot tell me that alimoney would likely be for about half the length of the marraige; when in reality he told me that over and over again, many times. Thats what he constantly told me.
— Goldin wrote that he frequently told me that my case was a good candidate for lifetime maintenance. Thats the exact opposite of the truth, the reality is he consistantly adviced me that alimoney would likely be assigned for just half the length of the marraige (3 to 5 years). This was actually a really stupid unneccessary lie by Goldin. Stupid because all the many lawyers I have talked to (around 15 lawyers) have said that a judge is not going to assign lifetime maintenance from a short term marraige when I still have 20 years left to work and I’m not rich. Its just not going to happen. I’ve also studied legal precedents for my case, to know this is true. So everyone knows this, yet Goldin for some reason felt he needed to tell this lie? Its unneccessary cause all he had to write to the Committee is that his interpretation of the wording of the agreement is it would not hurt me. Thats all he had to say, and that is what he told me; saying that would have been more legitimate than the lies he told. So I think with this lie, beyond the lie, anyone considering hiring Goldin should consider how the lack of logical reasoning this lie shows.
More details are available for those who want them