I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.

I would not recommend Rachael for any complex situation such as modifying or ending long term spousal support. In my case Rachael had a very challenging time understanding the effects of the new tax law, evaluating the time value of finances (i.e. present value of a series of spousal support payments including income taxes) or the effects of a significant increase in my annual income. In my case she did not use any reference material from previous cases as a basis for my filing. The quality of material filings was poor and required very careful proofreading on my part as well as substantial additions to clearly articulate points. Rachael was slow to respond to deadlines and in one situation, the delay in filing a signed agreement for a vocational evaluation allowed the opposing attorney to withdrawal his acceptance of the original evaluator. In addition, she held several conferences with the opposing attorney which provided no material information or progress. Rachael was either oversubscribed or lost interest in my case, even making comments near the end that indicated her sympathy for my ex spouse. I realized that I had no confidence in her desire or ability to present compelling evidence and arguments on my behalf if the matter went to trial, despite her initial assessment to “strike while the iron is hot.” Given the circumstances, I settled for a premium knowing that the chances of a favorable decision during a trial would be unlikely and expensive. I’m am fairly certain that Rachael’s specialty does not including handling cases involving modifying long term spousal support. Given my experience, I would certainly not recommend her for similar matters.