EDITOR’S COMMENT:  Ripoff Report strongly believes in the First Amendment, especially when consumers are truthfully warning other consumers about potential frauds, scams, rip-offs or the like by shady individuals or businesses.  Ripoff Report is by consumers, for consumers…and we want to keep it that way!  Unfortunately this Report was posted and, upon additional information, appears to have been primarily for the purpose of bullying or harassment.  In many instances Ripoff Report will reach out to the author of the Report to obtain further information.  In other instances, enough information is provided to Ripoff Report to warrant redactions without reaching out to the author.  Ripoff Report is working to combat tactics that are perceived to be cyberharassment, cyberstalking, cyberbullying and/or what is generally considered a “revenge post” as we do not condone such behavior. 

The Report was brought to our attention and, upon review of compiled information (which will be done on a case by case basis without any obligation as resources allow), and at Ripoff Report’s sole discretion, information that did not conform to current policies and/or the identifying information relating to the individual(s) and/or business(es) named in this “Report” and any subsequent comments thereto have been editorially redacted as indicated by the following “(((REDACTED)))” or (((REDACTED DUE TO PERCEIVED HARASSMENT / REVENGE POST)))”.

CONSUMERS:  Be kind.  Keep it honest.  Keep it fair.  Stick to the facts.  Do your research.  Keep the dirty laundry in the laundry hamper…not on Ripoff Report.

PLEASED TO SEE SUCH EFFORTS?  YOU CAN HELP RIPOFF REPORT COMBAT THESE TYPES OF ISSUES:  Ripoff Report, as resources allow, is working towards combatting Cyberharassment, Cyberstalking, Cyberbullying and/or other problems such as what is generically called “revenge posts” that can be riddled with personal commentary and/or allegations that can be serious.   Ripoff Report would love to be able to timely address each and every review request we receive, however, this takes resources.  If you think this is a worth-while endeavor, we encourage you to make a donation so that we can expand the resources that we can devote to this project.  You can make a non-tax deductible donation by clicking HERE NOW or learn a little more by visiting our “Donate to our Efforts” page.  The more resources we have, the more resources we can devote to this project and other forward thinking and positive initiatives like it.

Thank you!

~ Ripoff Report Team

NOW TO THE EDITORIALLY REDACTED POSTING(S):

----------------------------------------------------------

Anthony R

(((REDACTED))) 

BEWARE OF (((REDACTED)))

Would you want to retain a lawyer who abandons her clients? Anybody considering retaining (((REDACTED)))  should first read the following:

I was a victim of consumer fraud in New Jersey. I was looking for an honest attorney to represent me regarding consumer fraud. The company/person refused to return my property to me, and they sued me for $7,500. I initially hired two attorneys, both of whom took my retainer and did nothing. Both times I found out from the court I was represented pro se. The second attorney did not even show up for a hearing, and a judgment was entered against me for the $7,500. I hired the firm to vacate the judgment, and to counterclaim for the value of my property. I had a witness who was deposed for 9 hours. The firm switched lawyers on me 3 times, and in the transition lost important evidence, both from my witness, and also important prices realized related to the valuation of my property.

The day of trial I was refused a jury trial as promised. The day of trial I was told they would not use my witness "because you know your witness and the judge will look unfavorable on it." I could not win my case without any witness. The judge said I should have had a witness. He said the Court could not award damages since my claim did not include bailment. His counterclaim was worthless. I lost over $126,000 in property and I was charged $57,000 to get a $7,500 judgment vacated. 

(((REDACTED))) reviewed my files and stated I had a strong legal malpractice case. She agreed to represent me. After 2 years she returned my documents to me, saying she was too busy. Roper did not even have the decency or ethics to refer me to another attorney. She made it impossible for me to find another lawyer, having held my files for two years.

The following is an email she sent me regarding her representation:

Mr. Malanga has agreed to consider acting as an expert witness in your case with compensation to be paid at the end of the case.  That would mean that in the event that we lost your legal malpractice claim you would still be indebted to pay him.  Are you willing to agree to those terms.  Also, I have not provided him with the documents yet until I receive your answer.  He has not agreed to be your expert yet, just to confirm that he would be willing to do so without compensation up front.  I will need to get the tapes from the entire trial.  Eventually they will need to be transcribed.  Please advise.

(((REDACTED)))

NJ High Court Reprimands Atty In Legal Malpractice Row

Share us on: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn By Martin Bricketto 0 Comments

Law360, New York (July 01, 2013, 8:16 PM ET) -- The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded a (((REDACTED))) lawyer based on a grievance pursued by Rivkin Radler LLP, the attorney's foe in bitter malpractice litigation accusing a Rivkin client, Leeds Morelli & Brown PC, of forsaking employment claims for commercial bribes.

Rivkin had tapped Pashman Stein co-founder Michael Stein to file the grievance against (((REDACTED))), and the state Disciplinary Review Board in March found that misrepresentations and omissions by (((REDACTED))) in an application for admission to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had violated state conduct rules. Another Pasham Stein co-founder, Louis Pashman, chairs the DRB, though he recused himself from the case.

In an order posted Monday, the high court backed the DRB's call for a reprimand. The board decided on that discipline after finding that (((REDACTED)))had improperly held himself out to be in good legal standing in Minnesota and withheld information about a vacated pro hac vice admission in Colorado, criminal contempt proceedings and grievances against him.

“Respondent’s arguments that he forgot that he was not in good standing or that he misinterpreted the questions on the application for admission are specious and strain credulity. Respondent was clearly an able attorney with 20 years of experience,” the DRB decision said.

The board said whether the grievance was filed to gain some tactical advantage in civil litigation had no impact on its decision.

Rivkin Radler declined to comment on the disciplinary ruling, while Thyne and his attorney did not immediately return requests for comment.

In March, the state's Appellate Division refused to revive Roper & Twardowsky's suit claiming Rivkin had used ethical grievances to harass the firm.

Backing the dismissal of a complaint against Rivkin and Pashman Stein, a three-judge appellate panel said current law clearly holds that a person who files or cooperates in the investigation of an ethics grievance is immune from suit.

Totowa, N.J.-based(((REDACTED)))and senior partner (((REDACTED))) had urged the courts to strip such protection from firms that use attorney ethics complaints as a litigation tactic to harass their opponents.

“We agree with the motion judge that a decision whether to amend the rule of absolute immunity is vouchsafed exclusively to the Supreme Court," Monday's opinion said. "We could not accept plaintiffs' invitation to 'carve out an exception' to the rule, even if we were inclined to do so."

(((REDACTED)))y has represented workers with Nextel Communications Inc. and Prudential Financial Inc. who, in separate suits, alleged that Leeds Morelli & Brown committed legal malpractice by brokering settlement agreements with those companies that corralled their claims into alternative dispute resolution processes. In return, Leeds Morelli received what the plaintiffs have framed as commercial bribes. Rivkin has represented Leeds Morelli.

In 2011, the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of the case against Leeds Morelli and Nextel. Viewing the facts in favor of the plaintiffs, the court found that the settlement agreement created an “enormous” conflict of interest and that the firm had breached its fiduciary duty to the workers.

Under the disputed settlement, Nextel agreed to pay the firm $2 million to convince its clients to drop their claims against the company in favor of an ADR process, and another $3.5 million on a sliding scale as the workers signed individual agreements that resolved their claims, according to the appeals court’s opinion.

Nextel also agreed to pay Leeds Morelli $2 million to work as a consultant for the company for two years beginning when the employment claims had been settled, the opinion said.

“The [settlement] created overriding and abiding conflicts of interest for [Leeds Morelli], and thoroughly undermined its ability to ‘deal fairly, honestly and with undivided loyalty to [appellants],’” the appeals court said.

(((REDACTED))) also faced a grievance for attesting to (((REDACTED))) signature on the admission application, though it was eventually dismissed.

(((REDACTED))) is represented by Alan L. Zegas of the Law Offices of Alan L. Zegas.

--Editing by Chris Yates.