I wrote a long post yesterday titled "Trouble in the Jackson County Courts."
I described my observations and impressions from an eight day trial. The RISE Law Group in Medford was the defendant in a case regarding a lawyer's fiduciary duty, reasonable fees, billing practices, collection practices against a client's unpaid bill, motions to recuse judges, and proportional activity by an attorney given the totality of the situation.
I received a comment yesterday evening. From the content I am confident it was written by the RISE partners Jamie Hazlett and Maryanne Pitcher and intended for publication. It is presented verbatim.
The RISE Law Group responds:
HAPPY INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY!
There is so much left out of this slanted and inaccurate piece but we thought it important to address a few pieces of context. First, expect that our response articles will be substantiated by transcripts, audio from Court proceedings, and court filings. (These are the same documents we offered to provide to Mr. Sage to give him an accurate and more well-rounded basis for his "opinion". He did not take us up on our offer). Second, we never raised with Peter Sage our practice of "recusing judges" because it is not at the forefront of the work we do for our clients, nor Ms. Orozco's matter, which is discussed in some part in this article. So we can only assume that Mr. Sage has made this the focus based on conversations with the Jackson County Judges and court staff, who have certainly taken offense to us using this accepted practice, with the approval of our clients. (In fact, as has been widely covered by the Mail Tribune, Rise Law Group was just one of many attorneys, including the Jackson County DA's office who blanket recused a particular judge. Notably the DA's office was not lambasted for causing chaos in the Court's scheduling, even though this Judge had to immediately switch dockets to accommodate their request. See https://www.yahoo.com/now/judge-fights-firms-attempt-recuse-132600238.html ) Mr. Sage also seems singularly focused on Maryanne Pitcher (despite the fact that Ms. Hazlett handled the majority of the trial and spoke to Mr. Sage at length and Maryanne Pitcher met Mr. Sage on one occasion and was a participant in one phone conversation). This is suggestive of a ulterior purpose (more to come.....) At Rise Law Group we are a team, Maryanne Pitcher and Jamie Hazlett. To the extent that Mr. Sage misquotes Ms. Pitcher regarding "her" comments about him being "biased and a misogynist":
It was, in fact, Ms. Hazlett who alluded to misogyny and the context of the conversation went something like this:
Peter Sage: Well you guys aren't well liked. You should be nicer get along better with your peers.
Jamie Hazlett: "Would that even be a consideration if we were male attorneys? Some people would interpret that as misogynistic?"
Peter Sage: "I'm not a misogynist, I'm married to a woman, an Asian woman".
Second part of the conversation, after Mr. Sage expressed his views on Rise Law Group prior to the conclusion of the trial:
JLH: Urges Mr. Sage to reserve judgment on us based on one disgruntled client's opinion (who he had already opined was not credible) and speak with some of our clients about our approach and the amazing results we get.
Peter Sage: "Well I'm sure I could do that and they will say you are sweethearts right?"
Did we ever call Mr. Sage a misogynist or biased? NO. Is a man who would suggest that women should be "nicer" in order to be a better lawyer, or suggest that we should "apologize" for our success and that we are paid well for it, or who somehow believes it would be a compliment to call a professional a "sweetheart" a "misogynist"? Read our articles to come and make your own judgment....
Kudos for printing this.