I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.

I was accused of a crime that not only did I not commit, no one committed. A former coworker accused me of peeping into her window. I didn't know where she lived. I had never been to her house. I could show I was outside of the United States waiting to fly home to be at the bedside of my dying mother on the date of the alleged event. She had a history of filing similar complaints on other innocent coworkers. There was no way I was going to take a plea bargain. However, after 10 pre-trial hearings, at which I turned down a plea bargain every time, and after Pick developed a cozy friendship with the ADA, Pick announced that I would either take a plea or he'd drop me. The problem wasn't I couldn't afford to pay for representation at at trial, just that he apparently needed to help the ADA get notches on his belt. Stay as far away from this guy as you possibly can. He'll drain you dry and then try to sell you out.

Randall did not want to mention my ex-husband's previous IV drug addiction or his history of delinquent child support in our custody case; said "that's negative and judges don't like that". I can understand not bashing, but these things are relevant. Long story short, he refused to mention these and other serious matters in court - would only bring up that my ex was in foreclosure, and my ex ended up with the kids because I was a full time student living in family housing, I was single, he was married with a new baby, had a house, made good money, etc., etc. For the record, I have no history or drugs, heavy drinking, violence, no criminal history whatsoever, very little dating to speak of (certainly no men running through the house), no evictions or foreclosures, had a 3.7 GPA at Texas A&M (which was never mentioned); nothing whatsoever to warrant the outcome that I got. My ex eventually abandoned the kids at my house, so I have them again, but this should have, and easily could have, been avoided with appropriate representation. Randall Pick seemed more concerned with befriending the opposing attorney (an attractive female) than winning my case. At one point he told me that he was going to discuss the case with her over dinner - on my dime. I reminded him that he agreed to correspond with her about my case in writing which could, and should, be done without the expense of dinner and drinks. The bottom line is that he was completely ineffective, if not harmful, in the courtroom. He is a former judge so I don't believe his is a lack of competence, but rather a lack of ethics. He may be good for a traffic ticket, but fair warning to anyone who hires him for a serious legal matter.