An independent Michigan divorce client review
Goldman Law & Sara Patten: my personal review
My name is James Magee. I paid Goldman & Associates $17,268.91, represented by seven invoices reproduced here. Sara K. Patten was my primary attorney. The firm decided to withdraw after mediation did not settle my divorce case. This is my personal account of the fees, the charges I question, and how the representation ended.
Based on my personal experience, I would not recommend Goldman & Associates Law Firm. I encourage anyone considering this firm to compare other firms carefully and review written billing and representation terms before deciding.
This is an independent personal account. It is not the firm’s website, is not affiliated with the firm or Ms. Patten, and does not speak for other clients.
Decorative stock photo by cottonbro studio / Pexels. Not my case records.
Why I would not recommend this firm
My concerns go beyond the fact that mediation did not settle my case. They concern the cost of the representation, the explanation of the charges I questioned, the legal guidance I felt I needed, and the firm’s decision to withdraw while my case remained active.
I paid the account in full, with the seven invoices here totaling $17,268.91. After incurring those charges, I was left questioning whether the services and explanations I received justified the cost. That is my assessment of my experience, not a finding that the fees were unlawful.
The two similar printing entries and the additional charges after the Green Dot subpoena rejection are concrete examples readers can consider. I want an explanation of whether the printing charges covered separate jobs and why the subpoena needed further service. I do not present those questions as proof of dishonest billing.
The firm’s withdrawal was also a significant concern for me. I have included both the timeline and the firm’s stated reason so readers can assess the circumstances rather than relying on a label such as “abandonment.”
My conclusion is that I would not recommend this firm based on my own experience. I cannot speak for other clients, and I do not claim that every client will have the same experience.
Compare firms before making a commitment
My advice to a prospective client is to compare several firms and ask clear questions before signing. In particular, I would want written explanations of:
- Hourly rates, billing increments, staff charges, and the estimated cost of each stage.
- How the firm handles billing disputes, possible duplicate entries, and work that must be repeated.
- Who will handle the case and explain the strengths, weaknesses, and risks of proposed positions.
- When the firm may end representation and how it handles deadlines and transfer of the client file.
I am not recommending another firm here. I am explaining what I would examine more carefully when comparing options.
The fees I paid
The seven invoice amounts below total $17,268.91. I state that I paid the account in full. The downloadable documents are invoices, not a complete payment ledger, and some show balances as of their issue dates before subsequent payments.
This figure covers the seven invoices dated June 5 through September 7, 2026, included in my records. It is not a claim about every expense associated with my divorce.
The firm ended its representation
On August 26, 2026, the day after mediation did not result in a settlement, Goldman & Associates sent me written notice that it had decided to withdraw. The firm attributed its decision to a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship and said it could no longer effectively or ethically continue representing me.
On September 7, 2026, the firm confirmed that its withdrawal was complete and the attorney-client relationship had ended. My case was not resolved through that mediation.
I question the timing and handling of that transition while my case remained active. That is my concern as the client; the sequence alone does not establish retaliation or another improper motive.
For context, Ms. Patten clarified that September 9 was a case-management conference, not a firm trial date. The final invoice also records several staff withdrawal tasks as no charge, alongside withdrawal-related filing and mailing expenses. I include those details rather than suggesting every withdrawal task was billed.
The billing entries I question
I am concerned about possible duplicate charges and charges for work that had to be repeated. The entries below explain why I question the billing. They do not, by themselves, establish that the firm billed twice for the same work.
Two printing charges on the same date
Invoice 122961 contains two $8.00 printing/copying entries dated August 6, 2026, under different staff initials. Both descriptions refer to printing outgoing mail. I question whether these were separate print jobs or duplicate charges.
| Date | Invoice | Staff initials | Recorded charge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Aug. 6, 2026 | 122961 | JB | Printing/copying: $8.00 |
| Aug. 6, 2026 | 122961 | MV | Printing/copying: $8.00 |
Similar descriptions are a reason to request an explanation, not proof that the two charges cover the same work.
Charges after the Green Dot subpoena was rejected
| Work date | Invoice | Task summarized from original description | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|
| June 29, 2026 | 121316 | Draft Green Dot Bank subpoena | $118.50 |
| July 22, 2026 | 122128 | Review rejection letter and update service address | $118.50 |
| July 23, 2026 | 122128 | Cover letter, review, re-service, and filing | $214.50 |
These three time charges total $451.50, including $333.00 for the two later entries, excluding related expenses. I asked why the initial subpoena was rejected and whether charges for repeated or avoidable work should be adjusted.
The invoices describe different tasks. They show that additional work was charged after a rejection; they do not establish why the rejection occurred or that any charge was improper. The original service descriptions support this summary. They have been removed from the public PDFs to protect private case details.
Personal perspective
What I want readers to understand
I provided materials about property, retirement benefits, financial records, and proposed settlement terms. I asked for legal guidance and raised questions about billing and the scope of mediation preparation.
This review concerns my experience with Goldman Law, formally Goldman & Associates Law Firm, and attorney Sara Patten in a Michigan divorce matter. The firm’s website is akivagoldman.com. GoldenLawReview.com is my independent site and is not affiliated with that domain. My account discusses legal fees, billing concerns, divorce mediation, and the end of the representation.
My records show frequent communication and some mediation preparation. Ms. Patten also honored my request not to review my entire supporting package page by page. I include that context because it is part of my experience.
My concerns centered on the substance of the guidance I received, the explanation of charges, and the handling of the end of the representation. Those are my concerns as a former client. I am not presenting them as established professional violations.
The fact that mediation did not result in a settlement is not, by itself, the basis of my concerns. I do not claim that the timing of the firm’s withdrawal establishes its motive.
Selected events from my records
A short chronology
June 17, 2026
I sent a discovery memorandum and supporting materials and asked for guidance about further discovery and strategy.
Record reference: Discovery correspondence, Exhibit B.
August 12, 2026
I sent a mediation-preparation request identifying the issues I wanted addressed. I asked to discuss scope and estimated cost before extensive additional review or revisions.
Record reference: Mediation scope correspondence, Exhibit D.
August 19–20, 2026
Ms. Patten communicated with me about my final mediation brief and confirmed positions I wanted to take.
Record reference: Final brief correspondence, Exhibit E.
August 25–26, 2026
Mediation did not result in a settlement. The next day, the firm notified me that it had decided to withdraw, citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship.
Record reference: Mediation and withdrawal correspondence, Exhibit F.
August 27, 2026
Ms. Patten clarified that September 9 was a case-management conference, rather than a firm trial date, and stated that the firm needed to appear until withdrawal was approved.
Record reference: Withdrawal and deadline correspondence, Exhibit G.
Sources and limitations
How this account is supported
The invoice figures and selected billing entries were checked against the invoice pages in my September 2026 record compilation. The withdrawal dates and stated reason were checked against the reproduced firm correspondence. The chronology is a selected summary, not a complete reproduction of my client file.
Redacted copies of all seven invoices in this record set are available below. My address and the service/expense descriptions have been removed. Dates, staff initials, recorded hours, rates, amounts, and no-charge entries remain visible. These are public copies of invoice pages reproduced in my supplied compilation, not unredacted original files.
This site does not claim that a court or disciplinary body has found misconduct. My account and questions should not be mistaken for such a finding.
Accuracy and corrections
I intend this account to remain accurate and fair. Any correction or additional response published here should be identified by date and clearly attributed to its source. A response should be presented in its proper context.
This account describes my experience only. Readers should make their own decisions and should not treat my experience as a prediction of their own.
Read the invoices
Seven invoices, dated June 5 through September 7, 2026. Download each redacted PDF or all seven together. Some pages in the supplied compilation contain only invoice headers or balances; those pages are retained.
The redactions remove the descriptions for every service and expense entry, including favorable and disputed entries, rather than selectively hiding individual charges. These public copies show billing figures but do not allow readers to independently assess the underlying legal services.
| Invoice | Issue date | Invoice amount | Public copy |
|---|---|---|---|
| 118771 | June 5, 2026 | $3,596.00 | Read invoice 118771 (redacted PDF) |
| 120396 | June 29, 2026 | $1,117.00 | Read invoice 120396 (redacted PDF) |
| 121316 | July 13, 2026 | $4,988.29 | Read invoice 121316 (redacted PDF) |
| 122128 | July 27, 2026 | $1,635.12 | Read invoice 122128 (redacted PDF) |
| 122961 | August 10, 2026 | $1,438.84 | Read invoice 122961 (redacted PDF) |
| 123703 | August 24, 2026 | $2,018.28 | Read invoice 123703 (redacted PDF) |
| 124274 | September 7, 2026 | $2,475.38 | Read invoice 124274 (redacted PDF) |
| Total invoiced | $17,268.91 | ||
Contact & responses
To respond to this account, request a correction, or provide additional information, email me directly.
James Magee
jim_magee@sbcglobal.net
This button opens your email application. Please avoid sending sensitive case documents or personal financial information. If you want a response considered for publication, say so in your email.