Mr. Sandow was willing to ,in my opinion, represent his client in a manner that revealed his poor moral aptitude and his willingness to bend the rules. He would simply start talking over "M" each time a damning point was being made about his client. On one particular occasion "m" was attempting to develop a picture of D's character . While recalling one of the multitude of occasions that Mr. Sandows client, "D" had physically assauted, choked, and threatened to kill her. Mr. Sandow, talking over "m" , repeatedly stated " we're not talking about that" . There were SEVERAL other instances where , Mr Sandow simply refused to allow M to talk by repeatedly interrupting and taking over her . In my opinion he is an unethical lawyer who is unable to follow the most simple court room rules of ediqit . It should be point, counter-point. There should be equal time for each party to Examine then cross examine. Robert Sandows approach is akin to that of An arguing child. A child who is afraid the judge Will hear anything that an opposing litigant Might say that could negitavey the outcome of the case. Another tactic Mr Sandow uses on unrepresented opposing parties is to bully them, first by interrupting them and then continually claim that what they're saying is not relevant. Not allowing the deciding party to hear both sides off the story is an infantile and rudimentary tactic. At the very least it drastically hinders the judges ability to make an informed decision pertaining to the welfare of the contested child. I DO NOT recommend this attorney tip anyone.

Mr. Sandow is definitely someone you want on your side. He is very knowledgable of the law, aggressive, compassionate, and extrememly honest. I have dealt with a few attorneys in the past 4 years and I must say he tops them all, I am never in the dark regarding my case, if I have a question he finds time in his extremely busy schedule to contact me back and fill me in on where we are at in my case. I could not be more satisfied with my choice in represenatation.