Kupferman & Golden, Attorneys at Law

In my opinion Larry Kupferman is duplicitous. First and foremost he has his best interest in mind and has 39 years of experience at it. I went through an extremely challenging custody situation where my ex had fired her original attorney and switched to Mr. Kupferman as a «Custody modification specialist.» I have never seen someone so misleading for his own personal gain. «Larry» is a special breed; he has worked millions of dollars out of the civil court system over the years at the expense of children, while claiming to be protecting his clients and their children. He does not care about the outcome, rather, only lining his own pockets. At the outset, I had heard from several family attorneys around town that he was not only duplicitous at best, but underhanded and manipulative at a baseline, and truly nefarious and unethical at worst. He lived up to his professional reputation. If one does their research, this opinion is confirmed over and over again, not only by his clients but also by the people he has harmed. The children are definitely the losers in the whole scenario and he is hopeful that the families he harms are willing to spend all resources to ensure he extracts the most money, for his own personal gain, as possible. There is no winner here ladies and gentleman only shades of loss, and Larry will ensure the most loss possible with no exception. After my 1.5 year of experience with this attorney it became abundantly clear that if I can save one family from using him, I will have done my fellow humans a huge favor.
#LaurenRSmith attorney at law is essentially Larry’s underling and public relations person. She provides an avenue to continue to put in billable hours at a reduced rate for substandard legal work. Her rate is still approximately $ 275/​hr, and FYI there are plenty of competent family attorney’s that charge less than this rate who will do an equivalent or better job. It doesn’t appear she is allowed to handle cases independent of Larry. As far as my observations, she is only allowed to handle basic components to ongoing case and does the bulk of communication with clients and deals with clients when they are upset. Occasionally she was allowed to go in front of the court to handle what they perceived to be basic motions. When I directly observed Ms Smith in court she was totally unprepared to present in front of the judge and was so anxious she forgot pertinent details and facts relevant to the case. If I had not known better, I would have thought it was her first time in court.