BEWARE OF ANGELA  ROPER

Would you want to retain a lawyer who abandons her clients? Anybody considering retaining Angela Roper  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. 

Angela Roper 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.

Angela M. Roper, Esquire

ROPER & TWARDOWSKY, LLC

77 Jefferson Place

Totowa, New Jersey  07512-2614

(973) 790-4441 (Telephone)

(973) 790-1016 (Facsimile)

[email protected]

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 Roper & Twardowsky LLC 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 Kenneth Thyne, and the state Disciplinary Review Board in March found that misrepresentations and omissions by Thyne 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 Thyne 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 Roper & Twardowsky and senior partner Angela Roper 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."

Roper & Twardowsky 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.

Roper also faced a grievance for attesting to Thyne's signature on the admission application, though it was eventually dismissed.

Thyne is represented by Alan L. Zegas of the Law Offices of Alan L. Zegas.

--Editing by Chris Yates.

I invite anyone to contact me for additional information.

Anthony Rxxxxxx, Jr.

Baltimore, MD 21227

(410) xxx-xxxx (((REDACTED)))

Email: (((REDACTED)))@hotmail.com