Mr. Paul Keister was retained by me in a Family Law civil matter to obtain foster care records. Mr. Keister contacted the Respondents, those obligated under the law to release its foster care records to a former foster child or adoptive child. One Respondent did release some hard-copy records, some illegible, afer being copied. Mr. Keister went behind the Plaintiff's back, myself, to secure a judge's signature that the records had been released, and that the matter was closed. I approached Mr. Keister as to why he did this after he was not reachable without consulting with me, before I had time to review what was released. When I indicated that not all records had been released, Mr. Keister indicated that nothing further could be done and that the judge's signature was final. I thought it highly unusual that a Respondent could release only part of the recorded history in foster care, 19 years of it, some periods of which were traumatic or abusive or both. When I asked who the judge was that signed off that the case was closed, Mr. Keister did not know or did not recall. I thought that this was a highly unusual response. Mr. Keister once describing this as a "nothing case." I had to retain another attorney in another law firm to undo what Mr. Keister did, to get the case reopened and to get a court order which directed that ALL records be released in whatever form they existed: on hard paper copy, on tape recordings or on microfiche and that they be legible. This was done, but not by Mr. Keister. When asked if my office conversations with Mr. Keister were being recorded, Mr. Keister indicated that he did not know. I thought that this was also a highly unusual answer for an experienced attorney who once ran for a judgeship. When asked if a conflict of interest existed between Mr. Keister and myself in this matter, he indicated that he did not know what that was, and when pressed, he indicated that such conflicting interests were hard to define, paraphrasing. I thought that this was also a most unusual answer. I got the idea that the Respondents were stonewalling the Plaintiff in their records production and that Mr. Keister was a part of the effort of impeding discovery by going behind hte Plaintiff's back to get this case dismissed, prematurely, before All records had been released. Once I hired another attorney to reopen this case, with court order, this alerted other care-taker Respondents as to what to do regarding their records in foster care: to not provide them, or to lose them, or to make a legal battle in order to get them released. This is exactly what one Respondent did, destroying records or losing them with contradictory dates as to when they were lost in a "fire" or "flood" about one year before this case began. Mr. Keister did not vigorously represent me in this matter, though he was paid over $8,000.00 over many months to secure those foster care records. He did not initiate delay proceedings against one Respondent though there is clear indication in the records that the Respondents were stonewalling the Plaintiff in releasing their foster care records to the Plaintiff. When asked to itemize when and what legal work had been done by Mr. Keister, Mr. Keister needed my cancelled checks to establish the timeline of what he did, and when what was done and how long it took him to do what. It was not a good experience to be in his office, with the distinct impression that I was being recorded, though Mr. Keister did not disclose this, and would not, giving a vague answer as to whether I was being eavesdroped on in my interaction with him. I think it could be described as sloppy legal work that he rendered which cost me dearly, legally and monetarily.

If you've got a simple quit-claim deed or simple will to write, he's an excellent attorney. However if you have a remotely complicated case, he's horrible at informing you of what is required on your part, and horrible at correspondence. I received an offer from the State of Washington with an expiration date of July 31st, which was mailed to him in June. I did not receive this package from him until Mid-August. He and the opposing attorneys scheduled a deposition for me without contacting me first, and by the time I received the paperwork I had only 5 business days to make arrangements with my employer. No phone calls, it all comes by mail weeks after it's needed. It's called common courtesy, something he is seriously lacking. I also had him list several properties, and as he was not available, the interested parties looked me up and contacted me for additional information and price negotiations. When the listings with him expired, I was not informed by him and listed with other more responsive agencies.

Mr. Paul Keister was retained by me in a Family Law civil matter to obtain foster care records. Mr. Keister contacted the Respondents, those obligated under the law to release its foster care records to a former foster child or adoptive child. One Respondent did release some hard-copy records, some illegible, afer being copied. Mr. Keister went behind the Plaintiff's back, myself, to secure a judge's signature that the records had been released, and that the matter was closed. I approached Mr. Keister as to why he did this after he was not reachable without consulting with me, before I had time to review what was released. When I indicated that not all records had been released, Mr. Keister indicated that nothing further could be done and that the judge's signature was final. I thought it highly unusual that a Respondent could release only part of the recorded history in foster care, 19 years of it, some periods of which were traumatic or abusive or both. When I asked who the judge was that signed off that the case was closed, Mr. Keister did not know or did not recall. I thought that this was a highly unusual response. Mr. Keister once describing this as a "nothing case." I had to retain another attorney in another law firm to undo what Mr. Keister did, to get the case reopened and to get a court order which directed that ALL records be released in whatever form they existed: on hard paper copy, on tape recordings or on microfiche and that they be legible. This was done, but not by Mr. Keister. When asked if my office conversations with Mr. Keister were being recorded, Mr. Keister indicated that he did not know. I thought that this was also a highly unusual answer for an experienced attorney who once ran for a judgeship. When asked if a conflict of interest existed between Mr. Keister and myself in this matter, he indicated that he did not know what that was, and when pressed, he indicated that such conflicting interests were hard to define, paraphrasing. I thought that this was also a most unusual answer. I got the idea that the Respondents were stonewalling the Plaintiff in their records production and that Mr. Keister was a part of the effort of impeding discovery by going behind hte Plaintiff's back to get this case dismissed, prematurely, before All records had been released. Once I hired another attorney to reopen this case, with court order, this alerted other care-taker Respondents as to what to do regarding their records in foster care: to not provide them, or to lose them, or to make a legal battle in order to get them released. This is exactly what one Respondent did, destroying records or losing them with contradictory dates as to when they were lost in a "fire" or "flood" about one year before this case began. Mr. Keister did not vigorously represent me in this matter, though he was paid over $8,000.00 over many months to secure those foster care records. He did not initiate delay proceedings against one Respondent though there is clear indication in the records that the Respondents were stonewalling the Plaintiff in releasing their foster care records to the Plaintiff. When asked to itemize when and what legal work had been done by Mr. Keister, Mr. Keister needed my cancelled checks to establish the timeline of what he did, and when what was done and how long it took him to do what. It was not a good experience to be in his office, with the distinct impression that I was being recorded, though Mr. Keister did not disclose this, and would not, giving a vague answer as to whether I was being eavesdroped on in my interaction with him. I think it could be described as sloppy legal work that he rendered which cost me dearly, legally and monetarily.

If you've got a simple quit-claim deed or simple will to write, he's an excellent attorney. However if you have a remotely complicated case, he's horrible at informing you of what is required on your part, and horrible at correspondence. I received an offer from the State of Washington with an expiration date of July 31st, which was mailed to him in June. I did not receive this package from him until Mid-August. He and the opposing attorneys scheduled a deposition for me without contacting me first, and by the time I received the paperwork I had only 5 business days to make arrangements with my employer. No phone calls, it all comes by mail weeks after it's needed. It's called common courtesy, something he is seriously lacking. I also had him list several properties, and as he was not available, the interested parties looked me up and contacted me for additional information and price negotiations. When the listings with him expired, I was not informed by him and listed with other more responsive agencies.

Mr. Paul Keister was retained by me in a Family Law civil matter to obtain foster care records. Mr. Keister contacted the Respondents, those obligated under the law to release its foster care records to a former foster child or adoptive child. One Respondent did release some hard-copy records, some illegible, afer being copied. Mr. Keister went behind the Plaintiff's back, myself, to secure a judge's signature that the records had been released, and that the matter was closed. I approached Mr. Keister as to why he did this after he was not reachable without consulting with me, before I had time to review what was released. When I indicated that not all records had been released, Mr. Keister indicated that nothing further could be done and that the judge's signature was final. I thought it highly unusual that a Respondent could release only part of the recorded history in foster care, 19 years of it, some periods of which were traumatic or abusive or both. When I asked who the judge was that signed off that the case was closed, Mr. Keister did not know or did not recall. I thought that this was a highly unusual response. Mr. Keister once describing this as a "nothing case." I had to retain another attorney in another law firm to undo what Mr. Keister did, to get the case reopened and to get a court order which directed that ALL records be released in whatever form they existed: on hard paper copy, on tape recordings or on microfiche and that they be legible. This was done, but not by Mr. Keister. When asked if my office conversations with Mr. Keister were being recorded, Mr. Keister indicated that he did not know. I thought that this was also a highly unusual answer for an experienced attorney who once ran for a judgeship. When asked if a conflict of interest existed between Mr. Keister and myself in this matter, he indicated that he did not know what that was, and when pressed, he indicated that such conflicting interests were hard to define, paraphrasing. I thought that this was also a most unusual answer. I got the idea that the Respondents were stonewalling the Plaintiff in their records production and that Mr. Keister was a part of the effort of impeding discovery by going behind hte Plaintiff's back to get this case dismissed, prematurely, before All records had been released. Once I hired another attorney to reopen this case, with court order, this alerted other care-taker Respondents as to what to do regarding their records in foster care: to not provide them, or to lose them, or to make a legal battle in order to get them released. This is exactly what one Respondent did, destroying records or losing them with contradictory dates as to when they were lost in a "fire" or "flood" about one year before this case began. Mr. Keister did not vigorously represent me in this matter, though he was paid over $8,000.00 over many months to secure those foster care records. He did not initiate delay proceedings against one Respondent though there is clear indication in the records that the Respondents were stonewalling the Plaintiff in releasing their foster care records to the Plaintiff. When asked to itemize when and what legal work had been done by Mr. Keister, Mr. Keister needed my cancelled checks to establish the timeline of what he did, and when what was done and how long it took him to do what. It was not a good experience to be in his office, with the distinct impression that I was being recorded, though Mr. Keister did not disclose this, and would not, giving a vague answer as to whether I was being eavesdroped on in my interaction with him. I think it could be described as sloppy legal work that he rendered which cost me dearly, legally and monetarily.

If you've got a simple quit-claim deed or simple will to write, he's an excellent attorney. However if you have a remotely complicated case, he's horrible at informing you of what is required on your part, and horrible at correspondence. I received an offer from the State of Washington with an expiration date of July 31st, which was mailed to him in June. I did not receive this package from him until Mid-August. He and the opposing attorneys scheduled a deposition for me without contacting me first, and by the time I received the paperwork I had only 5 business days to make arrangements with my employer. No phone calls, it all comes by mail weeks after it's needed. It's called common courtesy, something he is seriously lacking. I also had him list several properties, and as he was not available, the interested parties looked me up and contacted me for additional information and price negotiations. When the listings with him expired, I was not informed by him and listed with other more responsive agencies.

Mr. Paul Keister was retained by me in a Family Law civil matter to obtain foster care records. Mr. Keister contacted the Respondents, those obligated under the law to release its foster care records to a former foster child or adoptive child. One Respondent did release some hard-copy records, some illegible, afer being copied. Mr. Keister went behind the Plaintiff's back, myself, to secure a judge's signature that the records had been released, and that the matter was closed. I approached Mr. Keister as to why he did this after he was not reachable without consulting with me, before I had time to review what was released. When I indicated that not all records had been released, Mr. Keister indicated that nothing further could be done and that the judge's signature was final. I thought it highly unusual that a Respondent could release only part of the recorded history in foster care, 19 years of it, some periods of which were traumatic or abusive or both. When I asked who the judge was that signed off that the case was closed, Mr. Keister did not know or did not recall. I thought that this was a highly unusual response. Mr. Keister once describing this as a "nothing case." I had to retain another attorney in another law firm to undo what Mr. Keister did, to get the case reopened and to get a court order which directed that ALL records be released in whatever form they existed: on hard paper copy, on tape recordings or on microfiche and that they be legible. This was done, but not by Mr. Keister. When asked if my office conversations with Mr. Keister were being recorded, Mr. Keister indicated that he did not know. I thought that this was also a highly unusual answer for an experienced attorney who once ran for a judgeship. When asked if a conflict of interest existed between Mr. Keister and myself in this matter, he indicated that he did not know what that was, and when pressed, he indicated that such conflicting interests were hard to define, paraphrasing. I thought that this was also a most unusual answer. I got the idea that the Respondents were stonewalling the Plaintiff in their records production and that Mr. Keister was a part of the effort of impeding discovery by going behind hte Plaintiff's back to get this case dismissed, prematurely, before All records had been released. Once I hired another attorney to reopen this case, with court order, this alerted other care-taker Respondents as to what to do regarding their records in foster care: to not provide them, or to lose them, or to make a legal battle in order to get them released. This is exactly what one Respondent did, destroying records or losing them with contradictory dates as to when they were lost in a "fire" or "flood" about one year before this case began. Mr. Keister did not vigorously represent me in this matter, though he was paid over $8,000.00 over many months to secure those foster care records. He did not initiate delay proceedings against one Respondent though there is clear indication in the records that the Respondents were stonewalling the Plaintiff in releasing their foster care records to the Plaintiff. When asked to itemize when and what legal work had been done by Mr. Keister, Mr. Keister needed my cancelled checks to establish the timeline of what he did, and when what was done and how long it took him to do what. It was not a good experience to be in his office, with the distinct impression that I was being recorded, though Mr. Keister did not disclose this, and would not, giving a vague answer as to whether I was being eavesdroped on in my interaction with him. I think it could be described as sloppy legal work that he rendered which cost me dearly, legally and monetarily.

If you've got a simple quit-claim deed or simple will to write, he's an excellent attorney. However if you have a remotely complicated case, he's horrible at informing you of what is required on your part, and horrible at correspondence. I received an offer from the State of Washington with an expiration date of July 31st, which was mailed to him in June. I did not receive this package from him until Mid-August. He and the opposing attorneys scheduled a deposition for me without contacting me first, and by the time I received the paperwork I had only 5 business days to make arrangements with my employer. No phone calls, it all comes by mail weeks after it's needed. It's called common courtesy, something he is seriously lacking. I also had him list several properties, and as he was not available, the interested parties looked me up and contacted me for additional information and price negotiations. When the listings with him expired, I was not informed by him and listed with other more responsive agencies.