Menu
Login
BEWARE OF ROPER AND TWARDOWSKY
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 myproperty 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 thecourt I was represented pro se. The second attorney did not even show up for ahearing, and a judgment was entered against me for the $7, 500. I hired the firmto vacate the judgment, and to counterclaim for the value of my property. I hada 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 alsoimportant prices realized related to the valuation of my property.
The day of trial I wasrefused a jury trial as promised. The day of trial I was told they would notuse my witness "because you know your witness and the judge will lookunfavorable on it." I could not win my case without any witness. The judgesaid I should have had a witness. He said the Court could not award damagessince my claim did not include bailment. His counterclaim was worthless. I lostover $126, 000 in property and I was charged $57, 000 to get a $7, 500 judgmentvacated.
Angela Roper reviewed my files and statedI had a strong legal malpractice case. She agreed to represent me. After 2years she returned my documents to me, saying she was too busy. Roper did noteven have the decency or ethics to refer me to another attorney. She made itimpossible for me to find another lawyer, having held my files for two years.
The following is an emailshe sent me regarding her representation:
Mr. Malanga has agreed to consider acting asan expert witness in your case with compensation to be paid at the end of thecase. That would mean that in the event that we lost your legalmalpractice claim you would still be indebted to pay him. Are you willingto agree to those terms. Also, I have not provided him with the documentsyet 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 upfront. 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 [protected]
[protected] (Telephone)
[protected] (Facsimile)
angela.[protected]@njlegalmalpractice.com
NJ High Court Reprimands Atty InLegal Malpractice RowShareus on: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn By Martin Bricketto 0Comments
Law360, New York(July 01, 2013, 8:16 PM ET) -- The New Jersey Supreme Court has reprimanded aRoper & Twardowsky LLC lawyer based on a grievance pursued by Rivkin Radler LLP, theattorney's foe in bitter malpractice litigation accusing a Rivkin client, LeedsMorelli & Brown PC, of forsaking employment claims for commercial bribes.
Rivkin had tapped PashmanStein co-founder Michael Stein to file the grievance against Kenneth Thyne, and the state Disciplinary Review Board in March found that misrepresentations andomissions by Thyne in an application for admission to the U.S. Court of Appealsfor the Second Circuit had violated state conduct rules. Another Pasham Steinco-founder, Louis Pashman, chairs the DRB, though he recused himself from thecase.
In an order posted Monday, the high court backed the DRB's call for areprimand. The board decided on that discipline after finding that Thyne hadimproperly held himself out to be in good legal standing in Minnesota andwithheld 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 thathe misinterpreted the questions on the application for admission are speciousand strain credulity. Respondent was clearly an able attorney with 20 years ofexperience, ” the DRB decision said.
The board said whether the grievance was filed to gain some tactical advantagein civil litigation had no impact on its decision.
Rivkin Radler declined to comment on the disciplinary ruling, while Thyne andhis attorney did not immediately return requests for comment.
In March, the state's Appellate Division refusedto revive Roper & Twardowsky's suit claiming Rivkin had usedethical grievances to harass the firm.
Backing the dismissal of a complaint against Rivkin and Pashman Stein, athree-judge appellate panel said current law clearly holds that a person whofiles or cooperates in the investigation of an ethics grievance is immune fromsuit.
Totowa, N.J.-based Roper & Twardowsky and senior partner Angela Roper hadurged the courts to strip such protection from firms that use attorney ethicscomplaints as a litigation tactic to harass their opponents.
“We agree with the motion judge that a decision whether to amend the rule ofabsolute 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 FinancialInc. who, in separate suits, alleged that Leeds Morelli & Browncommitted legal malpractice by brokering settlement agreements with thosecompanies that corralled their claims into alternative dispute resolutionprocesses. In return, Leeds Morelli received what the plaintiffs have framed ascommercial bribes. Rivkin has represented Leeds Morelli.
In 2011, the Second Circuit reversed the dismissal of the case against LeedsMorelli and Nextel. Viewing the facts in favor of the plaintiffs, the courtfound that the settlement agreement created an “enormous” conflict of interestand that the firm had breached its fiduciary duty to the workers.
Under the disputed settlement, Nextel agreed to pay the firm $2 million toconvince its clients to drop their claims against the company in favor of anADR process, and another $3.5 million on a sliding scale as the workers signedindividual agreements that resolved their claims, according to the appealscourt’s opinion.
Nextel also agreed to pay Leeds Morelli $2 million to work as a consultant forthe company for two years beginning when the employment claims had beensettled, 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 theadmission 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 additionalinformation.
Anthony Raymond, Jr.
973 Circle Drive
Baltimore, MD 21227
[protected]
Email:[protected]@hotmail.com
