James M. Ruel - Hartford, CT

In summary, engaging Attorney James Ruel proved financially and legally damaging. Ruel initiated a series of actions that violated his fiduciary and professional duties as a lawyer and permanently destroyed my financial health in ways that are still being felt today. Here are the specific complaints and their impacts. Caution is advised before considering his services **Mediation Proceedings 4/21/15 Engaged Atty James Ruel to review mediated Lump-Sum (LS) settlement. Ruel advised client that paying 11 years of alimony via 132 monthly checks was better option than LS without supporting evidence. Client directed Ruel to pursue LS agreement only 9/28/15 Parties approved mediated LS settlement pending closure of minor issues Mediated LS (near final) settlement total cost = $15K **Ruel Abandonment of Mediation Ruel falsely justified leaving mediation, pursuing costly lawyer-led negotiations. Ruel’s numerous failures of fiduciary duty to act in client’s best interest & professional duty to provide competent representation took $15K cost for mediated LS settlement & increased to $350K. This figure consists of: *Dramatic increases in legal fees *Early 401K early withdrawal & associated tax penalty *Alimony for 1.25 years *Failure to capture client's pre-marital asset *New legal fees for appeal lawyer Actual post-divorce cash flow was significantly lower v. amount predicted in financial modeling SW Consequently, client had insufficient income to pay modelled expenses much less the new amounts $350K of new costs & retirement asset reductions relegated client’s standard of living to subsistence level **Ruel Competency Issues Ruel had post-divorce financial models run by colleagues with no accounting certifications or expertise, resulting in inaccurate cash flow models The accuracy of these models was critical to ensure my modelled expenses were affordable Financial model errors and new expenses forced a 401K liquidation of $125K to avoid bankruptcy & $1000/Mo/36 months to pay tax penalty. Overlooked pre-marital funds, resulting in a $30K loss. **Ruel Advocacy Shortcoming Failed to protect client from frequent antagonization by OC. Ignored client’s intervention requests Refused to support client’s request to verify OC’s billing against retainer funded by plaintiff is in legal compliance Violated fiduciary duty by joining with OC to belittle client regarding above request Allowed OC to cover constant missed deadlines with last-minute actions including prior approval withdrawals & cancellations of scheduled meetings and court appearances. Above caused > time and expense for interstate travel, wasted PTO & months of > time to finalize divorce. Ruel failed to inform client If your spouse is trying to waste your time and money, you can petition to have them pay for a portion or all of your divorce attorney fees and that the fees must be consistent with normal industry parameters When the financial nightmare from the Ruel negotiated settlement became clear, I called Ruel several times to discuss options appeal the settlement Ruel said, live with it, there’s nothing you can do about it. Fortunately, I was able to hire a new, competent, caring lawyer who saw numerous avenues of going back to court.