A prominent real estate executive faces explosive allegations in a lawsuit claiming he used his wealth and corporate position to systematically pursue a married employee, ultimately contributing to her marriage's collapse. The case, filed in early 2025, has sent shockwaves through the real estate industry and raised serious questions about workplace boundaries and executive accountability.
The legal action targets Tamir Poleg, CEO of Real Brokerage, a publicly traded firm valued at nearly $900 million. According to court documents submitted by Michael Steckling, Poleg allegedly engaged in a sustained campaign to lure Steckling's wife, Paige, away from her marriage through extravagant financial incentives and luxury assets.
The Nature of the Alleged Proposition
The lawsuit details a methodical pursuit beginning in January 2025, when Poleg allegedly presented Paige Steckling with what the filing calls an "indecent proposal." Court documents claim the CEO offered over $500,000 in cash and a prestigious Park City, Utah home valued between $2 million and $3 million.
The allegations grow more specific regarding subsequent financial arrangements. The complaint asserts Poleg later emailed detailed instructions explaining how Paige could access an additional $1.5 million in two disbursements: $800,000 immediately and $700,000 later. Such structured payments suggest a premeditated approach to long-term support.
To substantiate claims of financial motivation, the lawsuit points to specific corporate transactions. In early February 2025, Poleg allegedly liquidated more than $600,000 worth of stock in Real Brokerage. The filing suggests these funds were earmarked to finance the support package, drawing a direct line between corporate assets and personal entanglements that could implicate fiduciary duties.
Geographic and Temporal Pattern
The complaint establishes a timeline of meetings across luxury destinations, suggesting a pattern predating financial offers. According to the filing, Poleg arranged a Miami hotel reservation for himself and Paige in February 2025. The lawsuit further documents encounters in Las Vegas, Park City, and California in the months leading up to the alleged proposition.
These meetings in exclusive destinations paint a picture of a relationship developing in luxury settings far removed from everyday workplace interactions. The choice of locations—each known for high-end hospitality and discretion—may factor into the court's assessment of the relationship's nature.
Michael Steckling contends his marriage was fundamentally stable, with divorce never discussed prior to Poleg's alleged intervention. He claims external pressure created an irreparable rift that directly led to Paige filing for divorce in February 2025, shortly after the alleged financial offers materialized. This timing becomes crucial in establishing causation.
Corporate Response and Counter-Narrative
Real Brokerage has mounted a vigorous defense, presenting a markedly different version of events. In an official statement, the company flatly denied Paige Steckling was ever an employee, asserting she worked as an independent contractor.
The company's narrative acknowledges a relationship but frames it differently. According to their statement, Poleg separated from his own spouse last year and entered a "brief relationship" with an independent contractor—presumably Paige—who was already divorcing her husband. Crucially, the company claims this relationship ended nearly a year ago, directly contradicting the plaintiff's timeline.
Real Brokerage categorically denied any financial transactions, stating Poleg "never paid Ms. Steckling any money." The company dismissed the lawsuit as "without merit and filled with inaccuracies," suggesting it represents an attempt to exploit Poleg's public profile for personal gain.
Poleg personally rejected misconduct allegations, characterizing the legal action as a strategic move leveraging his high-profile status.
Legal and Industry Implications
The case highlights complex intersections of personal relationships and professional power dynamics in corporate environments. When executives hold significant influence over compensation and contracts, questions arise about the voluntariness of romantic entanglements with subordinates or contractors.
Employment law experts note that even with independent contractors, substantial power imbalances create problematic situations. The alleged use of corporate stock liquidation to fund personal pursuits raises questions about fiduciary responsibilities and appropriate use of company-related assets, potentially implicating securities regulations.
The real estate industry watches closely as this case unfolds. For a publicly traded firm like Real Brokerage, reputational risk extends beyond individuals to potentially affect shareholder value and consumer confidence.
As legal proceedings advance, the court must reconcile dramatically conflicting accounts. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving not only that alleged events occurred but that they directly caused the marriage's dissolution and constituted actionable misconduct.
The stark contrast between parties' timelines—whether the relationship ended a year ago or continued through early 2025 with substantial financial offers—will likely become a central point of factual dispute requiring documentary evidence and potentially witness testimony.