Complaint Review: Wayne Dodge Inc. Daimler Chrysler Corp. Law firm of Kimmel & Silverman Mr. Robert Silverman - Haddonfield New Jersey

Mr. Silverman: I have read your most recent posting and I have got to wonder how a very busy and important attorney,as you claim to be, can have the time to write a full 3 page document on a website. If you knew all the facts, Mr. Silverman, then why did you NOT represent me for the Breach of Contract in Writing that I had ? And 3 times at a dealership for the same repair - Magnuson Moss Warranty Act? This posting looks to me like some free advertising for you Mr. Silverman. You Aplolgy means nothing to me Mr. Silverman and you can keep it. The fact that you attempted to sue me in Pennsylvania for much more than the settlement ever was, was clearly done for spite Mr. Silverman. Perhaps because I asked you to reduce your "fee" your ego was bruised and YOU were the one that started to seek revenge. Perhaps you chose the wrong person to do that to. My Confusion Mr. Silverman? How do you explain that when the letter you sent me said "free" everywhere and "cost fee shifting" NO WHERE? Are you calling me stupid Mr. Silverman, because I would have to dispute the fact that I am stupid in this matter. YOU on the other hand seemed to have done many stupid things and got caught at some of them and got a slap on the hand for the others that you should have been caught on. It seems the committee agreed with me more than they did you - so does that make them stupid too? You really are the low life of the attorney pool using a website for advertising of your firm. But you would have to wonder how many people would even read it. I do not have to go over the facts of the car repair - they are stated in the beginning. If it was the minor drip, explain to me Mr. Silverman, why this vehicle had 2 head gasket replacements within a 6 month period? And you are wrong about the oil change, I did get reimbursed and you saw the receipt - it was part of the trial documents. You also neglected to say that the dealership did the repairs before they consulted with me and the deductible was approved by their own customer service - not me. I did not approve any work to be done on that day. The dealership was the one that waived the deductible. That was in writing too. And for your information, I was not at the dealership that day - I dropped the car off and went home. All my dealings with Chrysler were on the phone. For your further information Mr. Silverman, another dealership will not "correct" the damage done by the first dealership without authorization from the Field Manager. for doing so much work on this, I seem to know more than you do about it. So once again, Mr. Silverman I am hearing lies from you. And once again, in writing. And when I spoke with your associate the very first time, I explained to him what had been done so far and his response was "I know exactly what to do". When I was told to call Chrysler to make an appointment to take the car to the dealership for the field manager to look at, I was told by Chrylser that " this is not the procedure to follow and they - meaning K&S should know that". That is when I knew something was not right with this whole thing. In the Law Journal article of which I have a full copy - there is no dollar amount even in the article. And yes Mr. Silverman, I might not have filed an Ethics Grievance if you had not sued me. And you do not think there was even a bit of GREED in your lawsuit against me, Mr. Silverman? What you have not learned is not to lie. I had several people call me about my posting - not any that were fans of yours Mr. Silverman. My advice to them was "file a Grievance" - and that will continue to be my advice to them. You do not seem to be "well-liked" Mr. Silverman. And in closing, Mr. Silverman, I did better without your firm than I did with it. So go tell your lies to anyone who will listen, because you are not worth my time. You have a reprimand in your file that will stay there - THAT has to mean I was not as wrong and stupid as you make me out to be. Consumer BEWARE of this firm.

Now that this matter has been resolved, I am responding to the postings on this site for two reasons. First and most importantly, I hope once and for all, to clear the air with Linda. Second, I want to make certain at least some of the inaccuracies contained on this site are cleared up so innocent consumers are not misled. I will not respond to the people who have based their opinions solely on Linda's postings, who do not know me or my firm, nor will I respond to my former employee, whose postings were based on spite and not fact. To Linda, who I have been precluded from contacting due to the ongoing legal matter, I want to sincerely apologize. I should never have let this matter escalate to such a level. I accept the New Jersey Ethic Board's findings that I should not have sued Linda before allowing her the opportunity to go through the Fee Dispute Committee. I accept the Board's findings that I should have better monitored my Associate's actions in drafting the complaint and arriving at the amount in damages sought against Linda. I am sincerely sorry for these mistakes and more importantly for losing sight in this case of my normal client is always right attitude. I will use this experience to better serve my clients as I explain below. A WORD ABOUT FEE SHIFTING AND FREE REPRESENTATION My firm has represented consumers for free since 1991. We have 19 full time attorneys, with 12 being licensed in the State of New Jersey. We have always maintained a bona fide New Jersey Office. The office is staffed by two full time Paralegals, a full time receptionist and an assigned New Jersey Attorney. Even now that the bona fide office rule has been eliminated and that we do not need to go to these lengths to maintain a presence in New Jersey, we are expanding our New Jersey Office to further assist clients there. This dispute was almost entirely caused by Linda's confusion about free representation versus attorney fee and cost shifting, so its best to explain both. Since 1991, we have represented clients completely free of charge. Clients never pay costs or fees out of pocket (except business clients, because the law does not permit fee-shifting for commercial vehicles). Fee shifting occurs when we prevail for a client, by settlement or Judgment. The consumer/client's fees and costs reasonably generated to obtain the Judgment are shifted, meaning they are made the responsibility of the car manufacturer or warrantor. If a jury trial had occurred, the fee shifting triggers us to file a petition to the Court for payment of our attorney fees and costs by the manufacturer and the Court issues an Order. If we lose a case, we do not get paid and the consumer owes the firm nothing. If it is a settlement, the manufacturer is equally bound to pay the consumer's legal fees and costs in addition to the settlement of the claim itself. When such an offer is made by a manufacturer, it typically contains separate offers: one to the consumer and a separate offer to settle/pay the consumer's legal fees and costs (in addition). However, on occasion, a manufacturer makes one offer through its attorney, to cover both the underlying client's case and his or her bill of counsel fees and costs. Although this occurs in a minority of cases, it is not unheard of. In such a case, we alert the client to the full offer; advise the consumer of the lowest we can reduce the current bill to in order to help get the case settled; and most importantly advise the consumer whether the net settlement is full and fair given the facts of the case. The client is free to accept or reject the offer, but we are ethically prohibited from sharing our fees with a client. Interestingly, a law firm benefits far more economically by proceeding to trial, because additional hours can be recovered for a successful outcome, even if we win less for the client than the net settlement offer! This is not good practice and not our procedure. We believe it ethically and morally called for to advise the client when the maximum likely outcome has been achieved through a settlement offer, but it again remains up to the client to accept or reject. This scenario is precisely what occurred in Linda's case. THE FACTS YOU HAVEN'T READ Linda retained our firm a few years ago. This case took considerable time and effort. Linda never paid our firm anything, either in fees, or costs. She had purchased a new car, a base model car, manufactured by Chrysler that included a 3 year or 36,000 mile warranty (whichever first occurred). Linda purchased an extended service contract at additional cost, for additional time, that required her to pay a mandatory $100.00 deductible for each repair under that extra coverage. During her ownership, Linda reported only minor oil drips and leaks, beginning after the 3 year and 36,000 mile warranty. Under the extra coverage discussed above, she requested repairs from an authorized Chrysler dealership a few times, but the leak remained. To the best of our knowledge, the concern was slight and did not prevent her from driving the car at any time other than the days it was in for repair. Our review indicated that Linda was more concerned with having to pay the required $100.00 deductible under the service contract (which was in the contract itself). Because the servicing dealership would not accommodate her for a free oil change late on a Saturday, she went to an outside facility and paid for it herself. The dealership refused to reimburse her. Her refusal to pay the required deductible initially, and her actions at the dealership which may be described as disruptive, caused her dealer to ultimately refuse further repairs, telling her to go to another Chrysler dealership under the service contract. In our opinion, Linda, being angry, chose to call us and sue Chrysler rather than go elsewhere to have her car ultimately repaired. Had we formed that opinion early on, we would not have accepted the case, and looking back, I regret that we accepted it at all. After working tenaciously and diligently for Linda, again at no cost to her, we secured a total offer from Chrysler of $4,000.00, which they wished to resolve both the underlying claim and our firm's bill (to avoid our petition to the Court). Chrysler refused to make separate offers as outlined above. As ethically required, we communicated the settlement offer to Linda of $4,000 and told her that at that point, we had approximately $2900.00 in time and expenses on the file. We did however offer without being asked, to reduce our fees and costs to $2,000.00 to achieve an excellent result for Linda. One of my Associates presented the offer; clearly explained attorney fee shifting again and told her that we were reducing the bill accordingly. It was explained that if she accepted the offer, she would receive $2,000.00 for her damages and $2,000.00 for our bill, including post settlement matters that can be time consuming, and expenses that would be incurred. She could accept or reject the offer. My Associate gave Linda a few days to consider the offer and she happily accepted. There was no request to seek more, or to reduce our fees when she accepted. I then personally spent about an hour making calls so Linda's car could be repaired properly by another dealership free of charge. Linda's acceptance of the offer was confirmed in a letter sent by my Associate. Problems arose when Linda later changed her mind, after all had been concluded, and, speaking to me personally, asked me to give her some of [y]our attorney fees before she would sign the settlement papers. I declined to do so as we had already reduced our fees and costs by nearly $1000.00 and had done good work for her. Only at this point did Linda discharge our firm and report us to the Ethic's Board. The similarity between our experience of being accused of wrongdoing after declining her unfair demands, when compared to that of her dealer who refused to pay her deductible and oil change costs before calling us, appears too remarkable to be coincidental. Linda does not dispute her car was ultimately repaired after one more attempt and her only out of pocket expense was the required service contract deductible. For $100 then, Linda never claimed the amount of time and expenses the firm billed was excessive or unfair; she never claimed the $2,000.00 settlement was too low or unfair. Instead, sadly, Linda only claimed that our representation was not free to her, and the firm was taking part of her settlement. Interestingly, although denied during the ethics hearing, Linda was quoted in a recent newspaper article stating that she would probably not have filed an ethic's complaint, nor discharged our firm, if she had received $1,000.00 of our fee and cost settlement. Sadly again, this is perhaps the most telling fact. What we did to help her was unimportant, that we charged her nothing also, meant little. The fact that Linda was denied a demand for money she didn't have any right to ask for is the reason she spitefully pursued the claim and posted to this site. Although this site provides a forum for important consumer concerns, Linda's situation had nothing to do with bad lawyering or rip-off issues, by her own words. We are a firm that makes a living by helping consumers even the playing field when a manufacturer or dealer fails to honor a warranty. We are free of charge because the fees are collected from the wrongdoer, but only after they are shown to be wrong. We collect nothing from anyone if we lose. In today's world, it is unfortunate that appreciation and honor have been replaced with greed and revenge. According to the ethics decision, which Linda does not quote from interestingly, my mistake which I am very sorry for, was allowing an Associate to sue Linda for the fee and costs of suing her, without first allowing Linda an opportunity to avail herself of the mandatory fee dispute arbitration offered in New Jersey. It was an oversight that certainly would have diffused the matter and disclosed Linda's true colors early on. Having never sued a client before (and having never sued a client since) this oversight was no more than that. Because of the mistake, we forfeited our fees and costs, and all the other time and resources required to respond to her filing what turned out to be an overstated claim, a spiteful claim and for all but the oversight, a false claim against me. WHAT WE LEARNED FROM THE EXPERIENCE I have a very positive outlook and always try to see the bright side of otherwise bad things. I have used this horrible experience as a learning experience and used it to better serve the firm clients. Now, we have a revised and much more extensive disclosure to all clients, which explains in detail, among other things, all of the different ways a settlement offer can be made and how our firm gets paid in fee shifting cases we handle. Although we had a similar less formal letter before and even though the Ethics Board did not state such a formal disclosure was needed, in order to better serve all of our clients we decided on the change. Although it was clearly not Linda's intention to help other consumers through her actions, she did accomplish same and something good has come of this bad situation. My firm has always prided itself on great communications with all or our clients. Each client has an assigned Paralegal as well as an assigned associate attorney. Each client also has an assigned senior associate and partner. Our clients have always been able to contact the firm and its staff through e-mail, telefax, telephone and in writing and or clients always receive a swift response to all inquiries, including any questions about attorney fee shifting, which results in the firm being able to provide completely cost free representation to consumers. I invite any prospective, current or past clients to contact me directly with any questions or concerns. Respectfully,

Linda, I am glad you got what you wanted in the long run. Linda, I do not know much about law or the lemon law but it is obvious this scumbag attorney tried to take advantage of another consumer. I hope people learn from this case. I would never deal with Mr. Silverman or his firm ever, and if anyone is contacted by them ,I hope they do their research and stumble across this report. Mr Silverman, you are the perfect example of why most people think attorney's are assholes. How much money from that big fancy house you live in, is from screwing people.

This matter was heard in front of the Review Board and generated a 19 page document. In that document, it was admitted by Mr. Silverman that they did not have a bona fide office in NJ. And regardless of NJ law stating that a NJ lawyer must have an office in NJ, this did not matter. Long story short on the 19 page document, the Review Board decided to give Mr. Silverman a reprimand for serving me with a frivolous lawsuit. It is my understanding that this reprimand will stay in Mr. Silverman's file and if another complaint comes in against him, it will be more serious. I also had a senior writer from the Law Journal contact me to tell me that he will be writing an article about this to be published in the monthly Law Journal. It is expected out within a few weeks. The website is www.njlj.com. I do not know what the article will say, however the reporter did ask for other people to interview that have had issues with this firm. It is also my understanding that now any client to contact the firm must sign a retainer with the firm. I hope that retainer letter mentions "cost fee shifting" - because no one from the firm will tell you. Also be careful that they represent you in the correct manner - I had a Breach of Contract - in writing and regardless of showing proof of it several times, I was not represented for that. Good luck with working with this firm - I hope it is a better experience than I had.

Paul, I have a question for you. I looked up your name in the lawyers directory for Philadelphia and there was no listing. I looked under Newton Square - your town listed and there was no listing. I looked under NJ and there was no listing. perhaps I spelled your name wrong? Guest you said when you called me, right? so tell me Paul, if you work independently, then why was the number listed on my caller ID from when you called me that of a law firm in Delaware? Maybe I should call them and ask them if you work for them as well. It is my understanding that K&S has some connections with other firms as well - could this be one of them? What's going on Paul? Exactly what are you trying to achieve here? I did however see your name listed under the firm of K&S as late as March of 2002 - not so very long ago. I spoke with the Advertising/Ethics today. He seems to be quite interested - and asked me to send him this valuable information on these postings - and I will do so. Just like you wanted Paul, I have the attention of the Advertising/Ethics people. Just like you wanted.

Dear Linda and Tim: My final comments to your responses are as follows: Linda, the ethics complaint you initiated was not intended to solve your individual problem with the judgment against you by K&S. To the extent you look at it that way, you are abusing that system, but you are entitled. If you don't try to make the system work, it may not, but here I think it will. I'm sure Bobby Silverman regrets his advice to you to contact the ethics board. It is not the first time his own advice has backfired in his face. Advertising may be the root of the problem. You probably hired a web site, with an 800 number. Did you ever speak to an attorney about your case before you hired them for "free". Trust me, Linda, I did my homework before wasting my time here. Actually in the process, I learned about this site. Teresa is the lawyer who procesuted your ethics claim for you. If you don't know who she is, shame on her and you. I never used your last name and know of it because of your public record ethics claim. For Tim, your comments show alot of insight. You should know that Linda lives in New Jersey and the dispute with Linda involves a claim of a $2,000 fee on a $4,000 settlement. Because of this, K&S sued Linda in Pennsylvania and obtained a default judgment in the amount of $6,000 for its $2,000 fee. My understanding of the ehtics hearing testimony is that K&S could not explain why it sued its client for $6,000 in a state that has no jurisdiction. At the same time K&S claims it is compensated by the defendant for representing the plaintiff and the ehtics complaint included a violation of collecting a 50% contingency fee without a written agreement signed by the client. Maybe you want to explain abuse of process to Linda. Bye for Now, Paul

Yes, you may butt in Timothy - and yes I may be disgruntled because Paul is not the first person to call me from Pennsylvania about their complaints with this firm. Instead of calling me - they need to call someone that can do something about it - and I can not. The Ethics Board might be able to brush aside just one complaint (mine) but can they do that with several - can they do that with the other 8,999 people? THAT is what is making me so disgruntled - I did what I had to do - and I started the ball rolling - now I need others to do something as well. As for the source of my anger towards Paul - I feel that he worked for this firm, knowingly was part of their deceptive practices and is therefore no better than they are. RPC 8.4(a) of NJ Rules of Professional Conduct - "knowingly assisted or induced another to do so, or dis so through the acts of another." I have little or no respect for an attorney that knowingly participates an act of violation of conduct and fail to see how he can be a "nice" lawyer if he did so. Just my opinion - and everyone is entitled to their opinion. I filed my grievance, I took the time to attend the Hearing - 3 times I took the 2 hour drive - at my expense, I gave my testimony under oath, the committee found Mr. Siverman guilty of several violations of various Rules of Profession Conduct- and it was a unanimous decision for the suggestion of 60 day suspension- exactly what more can I do?? This is the part that makes me mad. I did however, put in a call to the Ethics Offices to inquire about the status of the Advertising issues of the complaint - which I do not believe has even been addressed yet. I did not as of this writing receive a call back. And a note to Paul - I realized who Teresa was - and if she needs any additional help from me, I will be more than happy to help her - I feel she did an excellent job with her presentation. thank you everybody for your input.

Linda, you are obviously disgruntled, and with good reason, but I fail to see the source of your anger towards Paul. Due to his prior relationships and interests with K&S it is not really his place to divulge specific information about their practices. He could, most likely, get himself in trouble by publishing exactly what it is that this company is doing. Additionally, as he is in the same type of practice, he is somewhat competitive with K&S and if he divulges details it could be construed as a ploy to divert clients. You were definitely worked over by this firm. Paul's assertion of "abuse of process" and the details you have stated give me an inkling of an idea as to what happened here. Basically, K&S most likely took advantage of legal "glitches" that are intended to make the system run smoother and ensure fairness, but often have unintended consequences. Here's an example of this type of thing, it may not be what happened here, but it is an example of where the system can go wrong: You hire what you think is a local firm to represent you in what you think is a local action. It turns out, and the firm never tells you, that the firm has attorneys on the bar in several different states, and the company you are filing suit against is nationwide, with general jurisdiction over them in every state. This being so, your suit, and your representation by the firm, can potentially take place in a number of states. The firm tells you they are handing your case off to another attorney who, unbeknownst to you, practices in a different state and brings suit there. Upon settlement, the attorney sends you his bill which doesn't reflect your original agreement, and you contest it. When you refuse payment, the attorney files a claim against you in his home state. For one reason or another, posibly due to plaintiff-friendly service rules in the attorney's state, you are not apprised of the suit against you. When you fail to appear to defend yourself in the suit that you didn't even know was taking place, a default judgment is entered against you. That's an example of how this kind of scam could be perpetrated. The good thing is that there is a degree of protection against these acts. In most, if not all jurisdictions there is a procedural safeguard that allows defendants to have vacated any default judgments entered against them when the service of process was not reasonably calculated to give the defendant actual notice of the proceedings. Furthermore, as Paul asserts, there could be additional civil remedies in these types of abusive situations. It is unfortunate that the field of law is alot like the game of chess - the more familiar you are with the rules and how they can be manipulated, and the more you know what your opponent is likely to do, the more likely you are to win in the end. This puts alot of power in the hands of corrupt attorneys who can take advantage of people who have no idea what's going on. Fortunately, as you have seen, judges and state bar associations don't look too favorably on these kinds of manipulations (at least we hope) and if the consumer is brave enough to pursue redress, the law usually provides it. I'm glad you won out in the end, Linda, and Paul - I hope you are as altruistic as you claim, god knows we need a few "nice" lawyers around.

Paul - I have read your comments and why don't YOU tell your story to the Ethics Board and YOU save the world. Not everything is about suing a person - no matter WHO it is and if they deserve it or not. I feel the advertising is the root of this whole problem and until that is addressed it will go on and on. I am 2 hours away from any Ethics Board and not like you work for a living. I am not calling any person named Teresa - I do not even KNOW a person named Teresa and if Mr. Silverman beats the system - well then the system does not work and believe it or not, I am not going to single handedly change the system. I happen to be too busy to "save the world from villians" one at a time. since you have so much time - YOU do it. I am sure your stories of the behind the scenes antics would be more powerful and effective than my in front of the scenes story. If you really wanted to do anything, you would stop talking on a posting board and talk to the Ethics people - but you choose to remain silent. That does not say much for you. and you knowingly assisted the firm in these "not so legal" procedures - I do believe that you have also violated one of the Rules of Professionism. I will now be asking the Editor to remove my last name from this saga as I do not want anymore Pennsylvania people that have a grudge against this firm to constantly call me to fight their battles. I did it myself - YOU do it yourself too.

Paul - I have read your comments and why don't YOU tell your story to the Ethics Board and YOU save the world. Not everything is about suing a person - no matter WHO it is and if they deserve it or not. I feel the advertising is the root of this whole problem and until that is addressed it will go on and on. I am 2 hours away from any Ethics Board and not like you work for a living. I am not calling any person named Teresa - I do not even KNOW a person named Teresa and if Mr. Silverman beats the system - well then the system does not work and believe it or not, I am not going to single handedly change the system. I happen to be too busy to "save the world from villians" one at a time. since you have so much time - YOU do it. I am sure your stories of the behind the scenes antics would be more powerful and effective than my in front of the scenes story. If you really wanted to do anything, you would stop talking on a posting board and talk to the Ethics people - but you choose to remain silent. That does not say much for you. and you knowingly assisted the firm in these "not so legal" procedures - I do believe that you have also violated one of the Rules of Professionism. I will now be asking the Editor to remove my last name from this saga as I do not want anymore Pennsylvania people that have a grudge against this firm to constantly call me to fight their battles. I did it myself - YOU do it yourself too.

Paul - I have read your comments and why don't YOU tell your story to the Ethics Board and YOU save the world. Not everything is about suing a person - no matter WHO it is and if they deserve it or not. I feel the advertising is the root of this whole problem and until that is addressed it will go on and on. I am 2 hours away from any Ethics Board and not like you work for a living. I am not calling any person named Teresa - I do not even KNOW a person named Teresa and if Mr. Silverman beats the system - well then the system does not work and believe it or not, I am not going to single handedly change the system. I happen to be too busy to "save the world from villians" one at a time. since you have so much time - YOU do it. I am sure your stories of the behind the scenes antics would be more powerful and effective than my in front of the scenes story. If you really wanted to do anything, you would stop talking on a posting board and talk to the Ethics people - but you choose to remain silent. That does not say much for you. and you knowingly assisted the firm in these "not so legal" procedures - I do believe that you have also violated one of the Rules of Professionism. I will now be asking the Editor to remove my last name from this saga as I do not want anymore Pennsylvania people that have a grudge against this firm to constantly call me to fight their battles. I did it myself - YOU do it yourself too.

Paul - I have read your comments and why don't YOU tell your story to the Ethics Board and YOU save the world. Not everything is about suing a person - no matter WHO it is and if they deserve it or not. I feel the advertising is the root of this whole problem and until that is addressed it will go on and on. I am 2 hours away from any Ethics Board and not like you work for a living. I am not calling any person named Teresa - I do not even KNOW a person named Teresa and if Mr. Silverman beats the system - well then the system does not work and believe it or not, I am not going to single handedly change the system. I happen to be too busy to "save the world from villians" one at a time. since you have so much time - YOU do it. I am sure your stories of the behind the scenes antics would be more powerful and effective than my in front of the scenes story. If you really wanted to do anything, you would stop talking on a posting board and talk to the Ethics people - but you choose to remain silent. That does not say much for you. and you knowingly assisted the firm in these "not so legal" procedures - I do believe that you have also violated one of the Rules of Professionism. I will now be asking the Editor to remove my last name from this saga as I do not want anymore Pennsylvania people that have a grudge against this firm to constantly call me to fight their battles. I did it myself - YOU do it yourself too.

Linda: For starters, I don't want to represent you or anyone else and I am not interested in making money off of anyone. My only interest is to see that the NJ Ethics Board do its job of regulating the practice of law, for the protection of consumers and to raise the standards of attorneys. It seems your only interest was to get rid of the questionable judgment they obtained against you. My "free" advice to you is that you may have had a good claim against the firm for abuse of process, which is probably why they voluntarily removed the judgment. You did at least accomplish your objectives. I don't want anyone to join me in any quest. To the contrary, I work alone and many time do my best legal work for free. Tonto would be proud. You started the NJ ethics proceeding and I think you should also be on the Ethics Board to complete its job. Call Teresa, she'll confirm to you that it "ain't over" and she is obligated to see it through for you as well as the public at large.

Thank you Paul for your "approval" of my decision to file a grievance in the first place. Remember, it was at Mr. Silverman's suggestion that I contact the NJ Bar in the first place, I only did as he suggested. However, it is not up to me to be concerned about the other 8,999 people that have had dealings with this firm. They could do the same thing that I did and file a grievance - and probably should have. If they had, perhaps that number would be lower, now wouldn't it? And since you seem to know so much Paul, much more than the Ethics Committee it seems, why are YOU keeping quiet and "know a lot about the firm and their practices - and may someday you will tell" Someday, Paul? Why not now? And yet you worked for this firm for a period of time, knowing that this procedure "was the norm" - as YOU referred to it? This sounds like you have an issue with this firm that YOU now want to make money off of. I would not take your advice or "representation" on anything related to this matter and caution any person that had dealings with this firm and is dissatisfied - since you worked for them I would think it would not be a good idea to be represented by a former employee. However, everyone is different. Keep searching, maybe someone else will join you in your quest - however, it will not be me. Good luck on your efforts.

Linda, You were on the right track in filing a complaint with the New Jersey Ethics Board. Whether you know it or not, (although the Ethics commmitee was critical of K&S suing you in Pennsylvania) the committee had no power to remove the judgment against you in Pennsylvania. The right reason to file the eithics complaint is to make sure they don't sue other clients for their "free" services. You opened up a real can of worms for the ethics committee because, according to K&S's web site, they have represented over 9,000 consumers in New Jersey. If they did this to you, what do you think they did to the other 8,999 clients? I'm not sure the ethics board knows what to do with this firm but I don't think you should let the Board off the hook. Its their job to enforce the regulation of attorneys in New Jersey.

With all due respect to "Paul", I feel that nothing is "100 free" and will never believe that anything is 100% free after the experience with the firm of Kimmel & Silverman. Unless the consumer complains and files a Grievance, nothing will ever happen to the firm of Kimmel & Silverman and they will continue to take advantage of the Consumer and make a fortune on scamming them. Paul was not the first person to contact me about their experiences with the firm of Kimmel & Silverman. It seems these other people have expressed that the procedure of suing a client if they do not accept the settlement and give K&S half seems to be the norm for the firm. Whether that is true or not is not for me to say. I can only speak of my own experience with the firm. I think those consumers that are experiencing problems with K&S NOW should file their Grievances and contact Paul. My Judgement was vacated - that was my concern. If the system does not work, that would not surprise me. Good Luck to those dealing with this firm - I hope you have a better experience than I did.

Mr. Silverman's last response is surprisingly accurate. The New Jersey Ethics Committee did recommend a 60 day suspension. The New Jersey procedure provides that any time a committee recomends a suspension, there is an automatic appeal to the Board of Ethics. Accordingly, oral arguement on this appeal was presented on Septemebr 11, 2003. The appeal is de novo and the Board can make its own decision. Many people in the small world of "Lemon Law" litigation in the Philadelphia area credit me with starting the representation of consumers after passage of the PA Lemon Law in 1984. Kimmel & Silverman copied my legal work product and marketed it very sucessfully on a volume basis. Although I did work for K & S for a few years, I would like to think that I never adopted their practices. I have alot to say about the current status of their practice, and someday maybe I will. For now I would be happy to talk to Linda and provide whatever assitance I can, at truly "100 % cost free".

Mr. Silverman: If this situation is not resolved, then why is it that I received a COPY of the Final Panel Hearing Results. The original was addressed to you, Mr. Silverman. And perhaps you are right - it is not resolved, the ADVERTISING ASPECTS of this grievance were reserved for future. So therefore, that whole issue has to be addressed as well. No, Mr. Silverman, it is not done for you. However, the consumer can still research the results of the Docket # listed in my previous statements. And,Mr. Silverman, I have a copy of the Final Panel Hearing Results that indicates that the panel was unanimous on this decision. Suspension in any form is not a good thing to have on one's record, I understand. Consumer Beware of this firm. Just beware. With or without any kind of punishment, there had to be sufficient reason for a Attorney Ethics Office to even review this - not to mention being put on a Supreme Court Docket and have a hearing by a Panel. If it was not sufficient reason to hear it, it would have never gone that far. Consumer, keep that in mind.

With all due respect to Ms. Waggoner, she is incorrect. This matter is not resolved and there is no final adjudication on this issue. Until this matter is completed, I cannot comment further.

I just wanted to update on this Report - Chrysler finally took responsibility for the actions of its dealership for refusal to fix a fixable car under contract. The Ethics issue against Mr. Silverman has finally been resolved with a 2 month suspension to practice NJ law for Mr Silverman. Since this is a matter of PUBLIC RECORD, I encourage the Consumer to do the research to find out the full Hearing Panel decision that was entered on record for this matter. And although in Mr. Silverman's Rebuttal he states "that just because a person chooses to post their thoughts on a website, does not make them accurate", in this case, the "thoughts" that Mr. Silverman refers to were in reality FACTS - that proved to be not only accurate, but punishable by an Ethics Committee Hearing Panel. I am satisified with the Hearing Panel decision. A note to the Consumer: make sure you know what the hourly fee is going to be before dealing with lawyers on websites that claim "free representation", ask for a billing statement, and NEVER - under any circumstances be pressured to agree to a settlement without first receiving and reviewing the Release that you will have to sign off on. BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET SCAMMED!!! OR SUED IN A STATE THAT HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE MATTER.!!!

June 28, 2002 I had to hire an attorney to resolve this matter with Wayne Dodge, Chrysler and the issue of Mr. Silverman serving me with a Default Judgement in the State of Pennsylvania. As I was about to have my attorney file a motion to Vacate the Judgement - I called the contact at the Ethics Committee to check to see the status of this situation - he advised me to contact the Presenter of the case directly. Upon doing so, the Presenter was extremely mad because she said the Judgement was to have been vacated by Mr. Silverman and his attorneys and I was to have been notified. It apparently has not been followed through in the correct manner and I was assured that it would be taken care of and I would get proper notification. I was told "what Mr. Silverman did to you was "not nice". I do not think the matter is totally resolved at this time - but the Judgement against me was indeed wrong and Mr. Silverman has been ordered to vacate it. Consumer beware!!!!!

As previously stated in my Original Report - the 1998 Dodge Neon I purchased 54 months ago is losing 1.5 qts of oil per 2,000 miles. I received a letter from Chrysler stating that "you have indicated in your letter that your vehicle is consuming oil at a rate of approximately 1 qt. every 1,300 miles. Assuming that there are no oil leaks, or any other mechanical problems, this would not be considered to be excessive oil consumption" However - the manual does not state this is normal - what it DOES state is that 7,500 miles between oil changes is "normal". Therefore, 7,500 divided by the acceptable 1300 miles, I would be putting 5.75 qts of oil into this car between oil changes. OR - within 6 months (if I have not reached the 7,500 miles) times the average 870 miles I drive the car per month would equal 5,220 divided by the acceptable 1300 miles to equal 4 QTS of oil to be added between oil changes. And according to Chrysler - this is normal for a car I have owned 54 months with 47,000 miles (avg of 10,000 per year) - hardly wear and tear on the vehicle. AND I might add that regardless of the manual stating that 7,500 miles/6 months is the requirement of an oil change for this motor, I had the oil changed every 3 months/3,000 miles. Again, hardly wear and tear on the motor. Therefore, since the Manufacturer Warranty ran out before the 36k limit - Chrysler feels no responsibility/ obligation for their product. And points out that an "extended warranty" is NOT a warranty - but a service contract. Therefore - they are "formally closing their files on this matter". And lastly, I want to add that there are 68 pages of complaints in the NHTS DEFECT database on the head gasket repair and squeaky brakes - and the engine as well. It seems that the NHTS considers these "normal" failures "defects". How many other people - regardless of the make and model of the car- with low mileage and more than the required oil changes - are adding qts of oil between oil changes??? And yet this car is NOT a Lemon in Chrysler's eyes.

First, I would like to state that at this time I have written to the State of NJ Atty General and have provided all documentation and asked that an investigation be conducted into this matter. I will be providing a copy of the letter as well as all documentation to all parties involved.

RE: Mr. Silverman's Rebuttal:

First - let me state that it was at Mr. Silverman's request that I contact the NJ Bar in the first place. (in writing)

Second - there is no monetary gain in the outcome of this Grievance for me - and it is unlikely it will do anything to release the judgment against me in Pennsylvania. I knew this when I filed the Grievance.

Third - I was interviewed first by the Ethics Committee and then Mr. Silverman was interviewed by them - although I have no idea what took place in his interview - and do not care to know any details - obviously the information he provided was not strong enough to convince the Committee to not file the motion. The motion is filed by the Secretary/Ethics Committee ON MY BEHALF - NOT by me. This is Public Record. To suggest that my allegations are "not true" would also indicate Mr. Silverman's suggestion that the allegations listed in the Motion by the Ethics committee are "not true" as well - since these are the same allegations. Not a very professional stand on the matter.

Fourth - What Mr. Silverman is NOT saying is that wrapped into the sum of the judgment are also fees for his responding to the Ethics Committee (a totally separate issue than the "supposed breach of contract - of which Mr. Silverman was not able to produce) as well as "fees for the anticipation of enforcing the judgment" - in other words bringing it down to Passaic County, NJ to enforce. I have documentation in Mr. Silverman's words indicating this.

Fifth - the consumer - free to do whatever they please - should know that there were no copies provided to me as a client by the firm of Kimmel & Silverman as to what "work" they had actually performed on my behalf and when asked for a fee breakdown - in writing - I was not provided with one.

Sixth - one does not have to wait for the outcome of a Grievance to go to the database for NJ lawyers to see that Mr. Robert Rapkin is not a member of the NJ Bar. Nor do they have to wait for outcome to see that NJ Rules of Professional Conduct - RPC5.5 "Unauthorized Practice of Law states : a lawyer shall not:
a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or
b)assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. (I am sure Mr. Silverman was aware of Mr. Rapkin's credentials - or should have been.)
Also stated in Paragraph (b) - "the person named must be responsible for the firm's NJ practice or local office in this State (NJ).... furthermore they must know that legal work generated in New Jersey will be handled by lawyers admitted to the bar of this State. (website NJ Law Network) so again - this is all Public Record.

Last - there is no mention of "cost-fee shifting" on the website of Kimmel & Silverman (www.lemonlaw.com) - however there is the word "free" mention several times.

And again - consumers are free to seek resolution to their individual problems in any manner that suits them - but they need to know these facts about this firm - as they are NO WHERE mentioned either in the website or by the people that represent you.

Thank you

First, I would like to state that at this time I have written to the State of NJ Atty General and have provided all documentation and asked that an investigation be conducted into this matter. I will be providing a copy of the letter as well as all documentation to all parties involved.

RE: Mr. Silverman's Rebuttal:

First - let me state that it was at Mr. Silverman's request that I contact the NJ Bar in the first place. (in writing)

Second - there is no monetary gain in the outcome of this Grievance for me - and it is unlikely it will do anything to release the judgment against me in Pennsylvania. I knew this when I filed the Grievance.

Third - I was interviewed first by the Ethics Committee and then Mr. Silverman was interviewed by them - although I have no idea what took place in his interview - and do not care to know any details - obviously the information he provided was not strong enough to convince the Committee to not file the motion. The motion is filed by the Secretary/Ethics Committee ON MY BEHALF - NOT by me. This is Public Record. To suggest that my allegations are "not true" would also indicate Mr. Silverman's suggestion that the allegations listed in the Motion by the Ethics committee are "not true" as well - since these are the same allegations. Not a very professional stand on the matter.

Fourth - What Mr. Silverman is NOT saying is that wrapped into the sum of the judgment are also fees for his responding to the Ethics Committee (a totally separate issue than the "supposed breach of contract - of which Mr. Silverman was not able to produce) as well as "fees for the anticipation of enforcing the judgment" - in other words bringing it down to Passaic County, NJ to enforce. I have documentation in Mr. Silverman's words indicating this.

Fifth - the consumer - free to do whatever they please - should know that there were no copies provided to me as a client by the firm of Kimmel & Silverman as to what "work" they had actually performed on my behalf and when asked for a fee breakdown - in writing - I was not provided with one.

Sixth - one does not have to wait for the outcome of a Grievance to go to the database for NJ lawyers to see that Mr. Robert Rapkin is not a member of the NJ Bar. Nor do they have to wait for outcome to see that NJ Rules of Professional Conduct - RPC5.5 "Unauthorized Practice of Law states : a lawyer shall not:
a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or
b)assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. (I am sure Mr. Silverman was aware of Mr. Rapkin's credentials - or should have been.)
Also stated in Paragraph (b) - "the person named must be responsible for the firm's NJ practice or local office in this State (NJ).... furthermore they must know that legal work generated in New Jersey will be handled by lawyers admitted to the bar of this State. (website NJ Law Network) so again - this is all Public Record.

Last - there is no mention of "cost-fee shifting" on the website of Kimmel & Silverman (www.lemonlaw.com) - however there is the word "free" mention several times.

And again - consumers are free to seek resolution to their individual problems in any manner that suits them - but they need to know these facts about this firm - as they are NO WHERE mentioned either in the website or by the people that represent you.

Thank you

First, I would like to state that at this time I have written to the State of NJ Atty General and have provided all documentation and asked that an investigation be conducted into this matter. I will be providing a copy of the letter as well as all documentation to all parties involved.

RE: Mr. Silverman's Rebuttal:

First - let me state that it was at Mr. Silverman's request that I contact the NJ Bar in the first place. (in writing)

Second - there is no monetary gain in the outcome of this Grievance for me - and it is unlikely it will do anything to release the judgment against me in Pennsylvania. I knew this when I filed the Grievance.

Third - I was interviewed first by the Ethics Committee and then Mr. Silverman was interviewed by them - although I have no idea what took place in his interview - and do not care to know any details - obviously the information he provided was not strong enough to convince the Committee to not file the motion. The motion is filed by the Secretary/Ethics Committee ON MY BEHALF - NOT by me. This is Public Record. To suggest that my allegations are "not true" would also indicate Mr. Silverman's suggestion that the allegations listed in the Motion by the Ethics committee are "not true" as well - since these are the same allegations. Not a very professional stand on the matter.

Fourth - What Mr. Silverman is NOT saying is that wrapped into the sum of the judgment are also fees for his responding to the Ethics Committee (a totally separate issue than the "supposed breach of contract - of which Mr. Silverman was not able to produce) as well as "fees for the anticipation of enforcing the judgment" - in other words bringing it down to Passaic County, NJ to enforce. I have documentation in Mr. Silverman's words indicating this.

Fifth - the consumer - free to do whatever they please - should know that there were no copies provided to me as a client by the firm of Kimmel & Silverman as to what "work" they had actually performed on my behalf and when asked for a fee breakdown - in writing - I was not provided with one.

Sixth - one does not have to wait for the outcome of a Grievance to go to the database for NJ lawyers to see that Mr. Robert Rapkin is not a member of the NJ Bar. Nor do they have to wait for outcome to see that NJ Rules of Professional Conduct - RPC5.5 "Unauthorized Practice of Law states : a lawyer shall not:
a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or
b)assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. (I am sure Mr. Silverman was aware of Mr. Rapkin's credentials - or should have been.)
Also stated in Paragraph (b) - "the person named must be responsible for the firm's NJ practice or local office in this State (NJ).... furthermore they must know that legal work generated in New Jersey will be handled by lawyers admitted to the bar of this State. (website NJ Law Network) so again - this is all Public Record.

Last - there is no mention of "cost-fee shifting" on the website of Kimmel & Silverman (www.lemonlaw.com) - however there is the word "free" mention several times.

And again - consumers are free to seek resolution to their individual problems in any manner that suits them - but they need to know these facts about this firm - as they are NO WHERE mentioned either in the website or by the people that represent you.

Thank you

First, I would like to state that at this time I have written to the State of NJ Atty General and have provided all documentation and asked that an investigation be conducted into this matter. I will be providing a copy of the letter as well as all documentation to all parties involved.

RE: Mr. Silverman's Rebuttal:

First - let me state that it was at Mr. Silverman's request that I contact the NJ Bar in the first place. (in writing)

Second - there is no monetary gain in the outcome of this Grievance for me - and it is unlikely it will do anything to release the judgment against me in Pennsylvania. I knew this when I filed the Grievance.

Third - I was interviewed first by the Ethics Committee and then Mr. Silverman was interviewed by them - although I have no idea what took place in his interview - and do not care to know any details - obviously the information he provided was not strong enough to convince the Committee to not file the motion. The motion is filed by the Secretary/Ethics Committee ON MY BEHALF - NOT by me. This is Public Record. To suggest that my allegations are "not true" would also indicate Mr. Silverman's suggestion that the allegations listed in the Motion by the Ethics committee are "not true" as well - since these are the same allegations. Not a very professional stand on the matter.

Fourth - What Mr. Silverman is NOT saying is that wrapped into the sum of the judgment are also fees for his responding to the Ethics Committee (a totally separate issue than the "supposed breach of contract - of which Mr. Silverman was not able to produce) as well as "fees for the anticipation of enforcing the judgment" - in other words bringing it down to Passaic County, NJ to enforce. I have documentation in Mr. Silverman's words indicating this.

Fifth - the consumer - free to do whatever they please - should know that there were no copies provided to me as a client by the firm of Kimmel & Silverman as to what "work" they had actually performed on my behalf and when asked for a fee breakdown - in writing - I was not provided with one.

Sixth - one does not have to wait for the outcome of a Grievance to go to the database for NJ lawyers to see that Mr. Robert Rapkin is not a member of the NJ Bar. Nor do they have to wait for outcome to see that NJ Rules of Professional Conduct - RPC5.5 "Unauthorized Practice of Law states : a lawyer shall not:
a) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction; or
b)assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. (I am sure Mr. Silverman was aware of Mr. Rapkin's credentials - or should have been.)
Also stated in Paragraph (b) - "the person named must be responsible for the firm's NJ practice or local office in this State (NJ).... furthermore they must know that legal work generated in New Jersey will be handled by lawyers admitted to the bar of this State. (website NJ Law Network) so again - this is all Public Record.

Last - there is no mention of "cost-fee shifting" on the website of Kimmel & Silverman (www.lemonlaw.com) - however there is the word "free" mention several times.

And again - consumers are free to seek resolution to their individual problems in any manner that suits them - but they need to know these facts about this firm - as they are NO WHERE mentioned either in the website or by the people that represent you.

Thank you

Mr. Silverman:
Thank you for your response, however, I am appalled that your arguments are economic; basically whining about your situation not taking into consideration the needs of your client. You appear to support the old cliche about attorneys being money grubbers.

You do not address the ethics issue and the conflict of interest allegation, which you explain. That is truly the major point, though. We will follow on this website.

We recommend that you do the right thing now for your client and reimburse them. You are the professional and you have used that advantage to harm your client by obtaining a default judgement against your client. That smack of bullying and will not look good to prospective clients.

You may have the "right," but you didn't do the right thing. Make this right with the client now before the Bar requires it. Believe me, it will make you look better. Or do you fear giving lawyers a good name?

Wayne Dodge really needs to be spanked for the way they handled this client. She should have never needed your services, but she did and I think you acknowledge that. You must, you took your fee. This woman has been through enough and then victimized again by her attorney. I advise that you take care of this immediately.

ED Magedson
[email protected]

Because Ms. Wagoner has filed an ethics complaint against me, I cannot specifically respond to many of the claims she raises or even her statement of what occurred with the car itself, until the complaint is adjudicated or dismissed. I can say any client has the right to file a grievance, whether fairly depicted or not. I certainly do not agree with the portrayal of our firm and its attorneys in the recitation Ms.Wagoner wrote, nor do I believe it was fairly presented. I do however want those reading the comment to understand we are a consumer law firm and entered this area of law to help consumers, not act in the manner portrayed.

Kimmel & Silverman, P.C. does its very best to make sure we achieve excellent results for every consumer we represent. No consumer ever pays our firm anything in attorney fees or costs, win or lose. All the consumer/client need do is reasonably participate in his or her own case.

The law requires the car manufacturer to compensate the consumer for damages due to the manufacturer's breach of warranty. The law also requires the car manufacturer to pay the attorney fees and costs reasonably expended in order to achieve a successful settlement or judgment for the consumer. The manufacturer can offer to settle the attorney fees and cost issue separately or can make a settlement offer, which includes resolution of both the consumer's claim for damages and our firm's bill of attorney fees and costs.

In the cases where a settlement offer is made in a lump sum by the manufacturer to settle both the underlying damage claim and the attorney fee issue, Kimmel & Silverman always makes full disclosure of the nature of the offer, of our current bill (which is almost always significantly reduced to achieve a settlement) and then it is the consumer's sole decision to either accept the settlement offer or continue on further with the case. Sometimes in smaller damage cases, where the manufacturer puts up a big fight or delays settlement, it takes a lot of work to produce an equitable result for the consumer. This is precisely why the governing law shifts the prevailing consumer's attorney fees and costs to the manufacturer. This is also precisely why the law uniformly holds there is no need for the attorney fees and costs expended by the consumer's lawyer to be less than or a percentage of the actual consumer damages.

If the law were to so hold, in smaller damage cases, all a manufacturer need do is fight even harder and thereby make it infeasible for any consumer lawyer to provide representation free to the consumer. As with all consumer law firms who work on attorney fee shifting cases, Kimmel and Silverman is paid for the actual amount of attorney fees and costs expended to achieve a just result for the consumer. Kimmel & Silverman does not have any set fee agreement with any manufacturer and never will have such an agreement. If such a fixed fee agreement were in place, a consumer law firm would go out of business as it could never afford to litigate cases through trial, which Kimmel and Silverman does all the time.

We are truly sorry Ms. Wagoner is unhappy with our efforts. We do wish her the best of luck with her vehicle and with all of her future endeavors. However, we feel all readers of the site should know just because someone
chooses to post their thoughts on a website, does not make them accurate.

Robert M. Silverman, Esq
Kimmel and Silverman