u/JusticeFraud

Engaging Pines & Associates was the most damaging legal decision I have made. This firm received a court sanction and an adverse inference order, throwing out a massive scope of our core evidence. To compound the negligence, counsel billed me for the hours spent drafting defensive responses to cover up their administrative blunders. Save yourself the financial drain and heartache--look elsewhere.

1. Rushed Paid Consultation
   On 03/08/2024, I paid $500 for an intake consultation. From minute one, counsel rushed off the phone and repeatedly cut me off. Despite paying for a full hour, the session was abruptly ended at 48 minutes without addressing core concerns.
2. Breach of Confidentiality
   On 03/28/2024, I provided strategic documentation linking key evidence (timelines, indexes, strong points). I explicitly instructed assigned attorney Amanda Moreno that these materials were strictly "attorney eyes only" for internal strategy. In direct violation, she disclosed them to the opposing federal agency during discovery, exposing our strategy and compromising my position.
3. Substandard Work Product
   Submissions were sloppy, riddled with misspellings, and contained egregious errors--including misidentifying me as female when I am male. Although the firm promised to share draft documents for feedback, they consistently filed pleadings without my review, omitting critical facts I had repeatedly explained.
4. Court Sanctions & Loss of Evidence
   Due to repeated failures to adhere to deadlines, the Administrative Judge issued an official sanction on 01/16/2025 citing three procedural violations, including failing to organize discovery and ghosting a court-ordered deadline following a power outage.
   Taking no remedial action, the judge issued an Order Taking an Adverse Inference after emergency extensions expired. The judge designated core evidence--Interrogatories 6-26/29, RFPs 1-10, and RFAs 1-5--as unfavorable to my claims. Rather than pursuing missing discovery from the agency, the firm focused entirely on drafting self-serving letters to excuse their noncompliance, leaving my case defenseless. They then billed me for writing these defensive excuses.
5. Pattern of Ghosting & Misrepresentation
   The firm stood me up for pre-scheduled legal conferences without notice on at least nine occasions: 04/11/2024, 04/15/2024, 04/21/2024, 11/09/2024, 01/25/2025, 01/26/2025, 02/14/2025, 02/24/2025, and 02/28/2025. Each time, I took off work and rearranged family commitments, only to receive excuses about tech, weather, or illness. On one occasion, after counsel claimed she was ill, a paralegal admitted she was attending a wedding.
   Furthermore, counsel committed an explicit misrepresentation to the court: claiming to the judge she spent three hours working with me on discovery, whereas phone logs verify the call lasted just over an hour.
6. Ignored Critical Discovery
   Attorney Amanda Moreno claimed the agency's discovery contained no helpful information. Upon reading the file myself, I discovered critical evidence counsel missed:
   Clear documentation of immediate reprisal (HR notifying management after my initial complaint);
   Four contradictory justifications given by the agency for taking adverse action;
   An LER specialist requesting removal from the case because management lacked proof;
   A third-level manager reaching out to past employers searching for prior wrongdoing where none existed.
   Because counsel failed to review these materials, I had to write a synopsis highlighting these key points myself.
7. High Turnover
   Pines operates with high turnover. During representation, two assigned attorneys (including Moreno) and two paralegals departed the firm. I was forced to spend time bringing new personnel up to speed, destroying case continuity.
8. Hostile Management & Bad-Faith Rescission

When I raised complaints to managing partner Eric Pines, I was redirected to Operations Manager Steven Tu, who acted as an aggressive, dismissive barrier to accountability.

Later, when I tried to terminate representation, the firm begged me to stay based on the merits of my claim and promised extra staffing. I agreed, yet neglect continued until my case was dismissed without a hearing. When I requested a fee refund on 05/15/2026, the firm offered a 50% refund. When I requested to be made whole for their negligence, they retaliated by completely rescinding their 50% offer and declaring the matter closed.
This firm operates as a high-volume legal mill that collects money while providing abysmal representation and leaving clients unprotected.

The judge's adverse inference order completely restricted a massive block of core evidence, specifically locking down:

21 Interrogatories (Interrogatories 6–26 and 29)
10 Requests for Production (RFPs 1–10)
5 Requests for Admissions (RFAs 1–5)

The Verdict: Avoid this firm at all costs. They are highly skilled at online marketing, but completely incompetent at practicing law. They treat vulnerable federal employees as transactional numbers, display zero human courtesy, and their profound administrative laziness actively destroys the cases they are paid to protect.

The judge's adverse inference order completely restricted a massive block of my core evidence, specifically locking down:

21 Interrogatories (Interrogatories 6–26 and 29)
10 Requests for Production (RFPs 1–10)
5 Requests for Admissions (RFAs 1–5)

Basically, the case imploded and I was unable to use any of this evidence.

• Paid Intake Consultation: On March 8, 2024, I paid a $500 fee for an intake consultation. I attempted to explain my history but was cut off repeatedly with unproductive comments. Despite paying for a full hour, counsel appeared eager to rush off the phone from the very first minute, and the session was abruptly cut short at 48 minutes.
• Basic Details and Coordination: On March 28, 2024, I provided over 1 GB of sensitive documentation, explicitly instructing the assigned attorney, Amanda Moreno, that specific materials were strictly for "attorney eyes only" to build case strategy. In direct violation of my instructions, she disclosed these documents to the opposing federal agency during discovery, severely compromising my legal strategy.
• Substandard Legal Work: Legal document submissions from Pines were sloppy, riddled with basic misspellings, and contained egregious factual and gender errors (falsely identifying me as female when I am male). The firm routinely promised to share documents in advance for my feedback, failed to do so, and completely missed critical evidence throughout the process.
• Court-Ordered Sanction: Due to the firm missing critical deadlines, the Administrative Judge issued an official legal sanction against my case on January 16, 2025. Unbelievably, the firm then billed me for the hours they spent drafting responses to defend their own administrative errors. Furthermore, they promised to address missing discovery items from the agency but failed to pursue them.  Instead, they wrote a defensive letter to the judge excusing their behavior, and never sought out discovery items that were not supplied by the agency.
• Pervasive Unprofessionalism: Over the course of the representation, the firm established a persistent pattern of completely ghosting pre-scheduled, critical legal discussions. I was stood up with zero notice or via last-minute excuses on at least nine distinct times: April 11, April 15, April 21, and November 9 of 2024; and January 25, January 26, February 14, February 24, and February 28 of 2025. Each time, I took off work and rearranged major family obligations. I was given every excuse imaginable: localized technical issues, rolling weather events, and multiple personal and colleague illnesses. On one occasion, I caught the attorney in a blatant lie when she claimed she was sick, only for a paralegal to inadvertently admit she was away attending a wedding.
• Gaps in Knowledge: Even months into the case, the assigned attorney routinely didn’t read or forgot core facts. I was forced to explain critical elements multiple times, yet they still failed to find their way into the legal materials.
• Unconventionally High Turnover: At Pines, there is an unusually high internal turnover rate; my file was passed between two separate attorneys and two separate paralegals who left the firm, destroying all case continuity.  I felt compelled, and was responsible for getting all of these new folks up to speed on the case.
• Misrepresentation to the Court: We spent exactly 63 minutes on a single phone log-verified call reviewing discovery, yet the attorney formally represented to the federal judge that we had spent three hours actively coordinating and preparing the file.
• Hostile Client Management: If you express legitimate disappointment regarding these failures to managing partner Eric Pines, you are immediately redirected to Operations Manager Steven Tu, who acts as an aggressive, dismissive, and entirely apathetic barrier to accountability.
• Bad Faith Retention & Resolution: When I initially attempted to sever ties due to their severe lack of care, the firm held an emergency conference, begged me to stay on the merits of my case, and promised to assign additional legal resources to secure my hearing. I agreed, yet the pattern of negligence continued until my case was ultimately dismissed without a hearing. When I formally requested a refund of my fees (exceeding $10,000) on May 15, 2026, the firm initially offered a 50% refund. When I requested to be made completely whole, they acted in total bad faith—retaliating by completely rescinding their own 50% compromise offer and declaring the matter closed.

The Verdict: Avoid this firm at all costs. They are highly skilled at online marketing, but completely incompetent at practicing law. They treat vulnerable federal employees as transactional numbers, display zero human courtesy, and their profound administrative laziness actively destroys the cases they are paid to protect.

Pines Federal Employment Lawyers Experience:

• Substandard Legal Work: Legal document submissions from Pines were sloppy, riddled with basic misspellings, and contained egregious factual and gender errors (falsely identifying me as female when I am male). The firm routinely promised to share documents in advance for my feedback, failed to do so, and completely missed critical evidence throughout the process.
• Gaps in Knowledge: Even months into the case, the assigned attorney routinely didn’t read or forgot core facts. I was forced to explain critical elements multiple times, yet they still failed to find their way into the legal materials.
• Unconventionally High Turnover: At Pines, there is an unusually high internal turnover rate; my file was passed between two separate attorneys and two separate paralegals who left the firm, destroying all case continuity.  I felt compelled, and was responsible for getting all of these new folks up to speed on the case.
• Hostile Client Management: If you express legitimate disappointment regarding these failures to managing partner Eric Pines, you are immediately redirected to Operations Manager Steven Tu, who acts as an aggressive, dismissive, and entirely apathetic barrier to accountability.

The Verdict: Avoid this firm at all costs. They are highly skilled at online marketing, but completely incompetent at practicing law. They treat vulnerable federal employees as transactional numbers, display zero human courtesy, and their profound administrative laziness actively destroys the cases they are paid to protect.

Pines Federal Employment Attorneys:

• Paid Intake Consultation: On March 8, 2024, I paid a $500 fee for an intake consultation. I attempted to explain my history but was cut off repeatedly with unproductive comments. Despite paying for a full hour, counsel appeared eager to rush off the phone from the very first minute, and the session was abruptly cut short at 48 minutes.
• Substandard Legal Work: Legal document submissions from Pines were sloppy, riddled with basic misspellings, and contained egregious factual and gender errors (falsely identifying me as female when I am male). The firm routinely promised to share documents in advance for my feedback, failed to do so, and completely missed critical evidence throughout the process.
• Court-Ordered Sanction: Due to the firm missing critical deadlines, the Administrative Judge issued an official legal sanction against my case on January 16, 2025. Unbelievably, the firm then billed me for the hours they spent drafting responses to defend their own administrative errors. Furthermore, they promised to address missing discovery items from the agency but failed to pursue them.  Instead, they wrote a defensive letter to the judge excusing their behavior, and never sought out discovery items that were not supplied by the agency.
• Lack of Attention to Detail: On March 28, 2024, I provided over 1 GB of sensitive documentation, explicitly instructing the assigned attorney, Amanda Moreno, that specific materials were strictly for "attorney eyes only" to build case strategy. These were timelines, indexes and analysis I had done to connect the dots and lay out a strategy. In direct violation of my instructions, she disclosed these documents to the opposing federal agency during discovery, severely compromising my legal position.
• Gaps in Knowledge: Even months into the case, the assigned attorney routinely didn’t read or forgot core facts. I was forced to explain critical elements multiple times, yet they still failed to find their way into the legal materials.
• Unconventionally High Turnover: At Pines, there is an unusually high internal turnover rate; my file was passed between two separate attorneys and two separate paralegals who left the firm, destroying all case continuity.  I felt compelled, and was responsible for getting all of these new folks up to speed on the case. Even the original incompetent lawyer was let go or left the firm.
• Misrepresentation to the Court: We spent exactly 63 minutes on a single phone log-verified call reviewing discovery, yet the attorney formally represented to the federal judge that we had spent three hours actively coordinating and preparing the file.
• Hostile Client Management: If you express legitimate disappointment regarding these failures to managing partner Eric Pines, you are immediately redirected to Operations Manager Steven Tu, who acts as an aggressive, dismissive, and entirely apathetic barrier to accountability.

The Verdict: Avoid this firm at all costs. They are highly skilled at online marketing, but completely incompetent at practicing law. They treat vulnerable federal employees as transactional numbers, display zero human courtesy, and their profound administrative laziness actively destroys the cases they are paid to protect.