Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!

Sitting in her waiting room, I could hear Marsha on the phone with a client, and I knew before I met her that I would hire her to handle my divorce. It wasn't what I heard, necessarily, but the tone in which it was delivered. I can't recall what her client had done (or not done, probably), but she was having none of it. "You stop this bull sh** right now," she yelled, "and take care of that thing I told you to take care of." Or something to that effect. I knew that if she could talk to a client that way, she'd have no problem dealing with my ex-wife's attorney. Yes, Marsha is a non-nonsense, practical advocate who will work for her client at whatever pace or ferocity is needed. She takes direction well, and she'll advise you when it's time to push and when it's time to give. When things looked like they were taking a turn in a more time intensive, therefore costlier (and more adversarial) , direction, she informed me of our options: bury them in paperwork or go work it out with my ex. Still on speaking terms with her, I chose to go to my ex, and we agreed to try to hammer out our settlement ourselves. When it got technical, we consulted our attorneys. My point is this: when she could have rung up the billing hours, she was straight with me and gave me options. Why pay her to do what I was willing, and more than able, to do myself? In summation: she kicked me in the butt when I needed it, but was always keeping my best interests--both legally and financially--at heart, even though her son was in college!