1. Heltzer Law Office

    1. Heltzer Law Office

    0

    Saint Paul, MN

    Cancel

    Open app

    Search

    Heltzer Law Office

    5.0 (1 review)
    Closed 9:00 am - 5:00 pm

    Services - Heltzer Law Office

    Real estate law

    Trust planning

    Heltzer Law Office Photos

    You might also consider

    Recommended Reviews - Heltzer Law Office

    Your trust is our priority, so businesses can't pay to alter or remove their reviews. Learn more about reviews.
    Yelp app icon
    Browse more easily on the app
    Review Feed Illustration

    12 years ago

    Helpful 2
    Thanks 0
    Love this 0
    Oh no 0

    Ask the Community - Heltzer Law Office

    You might also consider

    Verify this business for free

    People searched for Real Estate Law 132 times last month within 20 miles of this business.

    Verify this business

    Law Offices of Clarence Patterson III - Divorce Attorney Clarence Patterson III

    Law Offices of Clarence Patterson III

    (6 reviews)

    Downtown St. Paul

    After several consultations with other lawyers around the Twin Cities I chose Mr. Patterson. I will…read moretell you, it was one of the best decisions that I could've made. He offered me a fair price and allowed me to make payments. More important he got the results that we want. He was always more prepared than the opposing attorney. He was aggressive in court and commanded the respect of the judge. I definitely recommend him!

    I was the opposing party in a Dakota County family-court matter in which Clarence Patterson III…read morerepresented the other side. He never represented me. This review concerns my direct experience with his courtroom advocacy and written positions. I understand that attorneys must advocate firmly for their clients. But in family court, words can alter a person's life before disputed facts are fully examined. At an August 28, 2025 hearing, the transcript records Mr. Patterson saying that I "love to talk about guns," that my "relationship with guns is concerning," warning that people could be "caught in the crossfire," and later portraying me as someone who "needs a gun to solve his problems." I stated on the record that I hated guns, had never owned one, and would never have one. I found it profoundly disturbing to be portrayed through repeated gun-related language when I was expressly denying any interest in owning a firearm. The same transcript records Mr. Patterson referring to "his bipolar disorder" while denying my concern that mental-health labeling was being used against me. I experienced the combined gun and mental-health framing as stigmatizing and dehumanizing--an effort to turn disputed allegations into a frightening portrait of an armed and mentally unstable person. A separate and extremely serious discrepancy involved Dakota County Crisis. A sworn filing in the case stated that a crisis-team member had contacted counsel and that the entire office had been alerted about me. A Dakota County Crisis supervisor later wrote that she had searched the system and consulted with colleague supervisors, found no record or recollection of such an alert, found no documentation of a duty-to-warn event, and stated that the team does not communicate directly with attorneys. In my view, a discrepancy involving a claimed government warning was too consequential to be left unresolved. It deserved a prompt, transparent, and documented explanation. Mr. Patterson also asked the court not to consider approximately fifty exhibits because he said he had not received them. I am not claiming in this review that the service objection itself constituted misconduct. I am describing the consequence as I experienced it: severe allegations were presented while a substantial body of my responsive evidence was not considered at that hearing. The matter ultimately resolved by stipulation before the scheduled evidentiary hearing. The most severe characterizations were therefore not adjudicated through that scheduled hearing. The litigation nevertheless caused profound personal, financial, and reputational harm. I found Mr. Patterson's approach unnecessarily escalatory, stigmatizing, and damaging. I would not recommend him. Strong advocacy does not require turning another human being into a caricature of mental illness and violence. Family-law attorneys exercise enormous power, and that power should be matched by factual precision, restraint, professional judgment, and accountability.

    Heltzer Law Office - realestatelawyers - Updated September 2026

    Loading...
    Loading...
    Loading...