ripoff reports by getfresh

VIEWS: 187 PAGES: 14

									Rip-off Report: Warren S. Robins Of Hartman And Winnicki Law... http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/0/248/RipOff0248645.htm



Report: #248645

Report: Warren S. Robins Of Hartman And Winnicki Law Firm
Category: Lawyers

Warren S. Robins Of Hartman And Winnicki Law Firm, Cal Feingold Of Felig? Feingold Law Firm, Stanley Siegel, President Of NCAT. Estate Stealing: Working The Corrupt New Jersey Legal System; Law Firm Charges their own disabled senior client $88,0000 Facilitating the oppositions theft, THE ELDERLY, AND DISABLED BEING TARGETED BY THEIR SWORN PROTECTORS? Paramus, New Jersey
*UPDATE *UPDATE ..THIS IS JUDGE GERALD C. ESCALA ( An independant accounting of his ethics on Law.com)

Read how Ripoff Report saves consumers millions.

Sharon beverly hills, California

Rebuttal Box Respond to this report!
Are you an owner, employee or ex-employee with either negative or positive information about the company or individual, or can you provide "insider information" on this company?

Victim of this person/company?
Are you also a victim of the same company or individual? Want Justice? File a Rip-off Report, help other consumers to be educated and don´t let them get away with it!

Warren S. Robins Of Hartman And Winnicki Law Firm
West 115 Century Road Paramus,, New Jersey, 07652 U.S.A Phone: 201-967-8040 Fax: 201-967-0590
Modified: 5/15/2008 8:31:32 PM

Submitted: 5/14/2007 5:07:27 PM

West 115 Century Road , Paramus,, New Jersey, 07652 U.S.A.

Submitted: 5/14/2007 5:07:27 PM

Modified: 5/15/2008 8:31:32 PM

Sharon

beverly hills, California

Estate Stealing:

Ripoff Report Verified Safe

Working The Corrupt New Jersey Legal System; Law Firm Charges their own disabled senior client $88,0000 Facilitating the oppositions theft. HOW PERVASIVE IS THE CANCER OF CORRUPTION IN THE NEW JERSEY 'JUSTICE' SYSTEM? ARE WOMAN, THE ELDERLY, AND DISABLED BEING TARGETED BY THEIR SWORN PROTECTORS? WHY ARE THE MOST COMPROMISED HAVING THEIR ASSETS TAKEN FROM THEM? ARE THE DECISIONS OF A GROUP OF NEW JERSEY JUDGES POLITICALLY AND ECONOMICALLY MOTIVATED? YOU DECIDE! ONE WOMAN'S CASE; THE TAKING OF AN ESTATE UNDER CLOAK OF BLACK ROBES (MURDER WITHOUT A GUN) My brother Stanley Norman Siegel walked away with my inheritances , leaving me penniless and homeless. My brother Stanley Norman Siegel, while under the fiduciary duty as executor/trustee of my inheritances, took and kept the assets of my trust, left for me by my dad in brother's care. While executor, He depleted the assets I inherited from my mom's estate, fighting to undo his fiduciary obligations and enmassed huge legal fees to accomplish his taking of the trust funds from Dad. He did this with the assistance of: 1. His attorneys, Cal Feingold and Thomas Felig, (Felig/Feingold)

2. 'My Attorney', Warren S. Robins, of the law firm of Hartman & Winnicki, 3. and Judge Gerald C. Escala, Chancery Division, Hackensack. The case background in a nutshell; Our Father, Murray Bernard Siegel, (Moe Siegel) gave Stan funds, a gift, on the condition that HALF be held for me and given to me upon our Mother's death. Stan commingled my portion of the funds with his own for 11 years before Mother, Lee Siegel, died, and made investments with the funds. All this was verified by his attorney, Cal Feingold, to my attorney, Warren S. Robins,and others. While Mother lived, Stan admitted his obligation to me re; the funds. After Mother died, Brother refused to show the activity of those funds, or gains from the investments made with that money while he held it. After Mother died, Brother tried to force me into accepting only the principle. I accepted to avoid further decay of the trust Brother then refused to honor his own settlement offer to turn over my funds. Subsequently, and after over two years of legal fees, at trial, he denied any of the funds belonged to me. Knowing I am a disabled senior, and in need of my inheritances to survive, Stan then delayed disbursal of Mom's estate, which I inherited, and dwindled those assets in his fight to hold onto the asets of the trust, keeping me too poor to fight him. (In addition, there were other funds he held outside of probate which he'd accepted on the promise to give to me. He defrauded on that promise too. Although, Brother maintained there was 'NO PAPERWORK' on the conditions of Dad's gift. I was able to prove it's existence. Additionally, his attorney, Cal Feingold had verified the existance and conditions of the trust to my attorney, Warren S. Robins, and to others. At trial, in defiance of: The Prudent Investor Act, The Laws on Conditional Giving, The Rules of Professional Conduct, The truth Stan and his attorneys claimed; 1. ALL the gift was his money, although he admitted, under oath, that he received the funds on his promise to honor my Dad's directives. 2. Having admitted that promised condition, Stan's attorneys then aberrated the truth and the law, stating there was no trust. They stated Stan only held that money for me for 11 yrs, because it was his desire to equalize our bequeathments. 3. Stan's attorneys submitted that monies my parent's had availed to me during their lives should be deducted from the trust funds anyway.

(There was nothing in writing or otherwise to even suggest that that was my parent's intent.) What should have occured; The following question of facts was posed to an expert estates attorney in New Jersey; 'Father gave Son funds, a gift, on the condition that half be held for daughter and given when the Wife died. Don't the funds the Son held from this conditional giving for 12 years have to be treated as a trust? Son commingled his sister's portion of the funds with his own for over 10 years before the Mother/Wife died and made investments with the funds. While the mother lived, Son admitted his obligation to his sister re; the funds. After Mother died, Brother refused to show the gains from the investments made with that money while he held it. After Mother died, Brother tried to force sister into accepting only the principle. Brother then denied any of the funds belonged to his sister, and . He then refused to disburse any of it. Question; Is this embezzlement? ' His Answer: 'I am presuming nothing has ever been confirmed in writing, so there is no written evidence of the agreements or obligations. Presuming all of this can be verified, the gifting created a constructive trust in favor of the sister, also creating a fiduciary obligation on the brother. The sister would be entitled not only to her share of the principal, but also her share of any appreciation or gains.'. Outcome: In the end the applicable laws of the state of New Jersey were thrown out the window in the determination of this case. Please keep in mind that there are two estates in question, my father's and my mother's. Dad's was a gift to Stan, inclusive of a trust for me. Mom's consited of assets she designated to my brother and his children outside of probate, and her probated estate, left entirely to me. * When reading Judge Escala's decision, NOTE; 1.THAT STAN TESTIFIED TO THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH HE WAS GIVEN MY DAD'S GIFT' (para. #1) **(Also, see Stan's taped messages, below) 2.THAT CAL FEINGOLD HAD VERIFIED THE TRUST AND IT'S CONDITIONS AS I'VE STATED ABOVE. HE VERIFIED THEM TO MY ATTORNEY AND OTHERS. THOSE CONDITIONS WERE STATED AS SUCH IN A VERIFIED COMPLAINT MY ATTORNEY SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. 3. *****THAT MY BROTHER'S TAPED REPRESENTATIONS OF THE TRUST WERE MADE AFTER MY MOTHER REWROTE HER WILL MAKING ME SOLE BENEFICIARY. 4. THAT MOM NEVER INDICATED ANYWHERE THAT HER WILL CHANGE IN 2002 WOULD OR SHOULD HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE EARLIER FUNDS FROM MY DAD. THIS 'NOTION' WAS ESCALA'S INTERJECTION, AS HE REWROTE MY PARENT'S INTENT.

IN DEFIANCE OF; The Prudent Investor Act The Laws on Conditional Giving, My Parents' Intent And, amidst a myriad of incorrect dates, timeframes, dollar amounts, and other incorrect facts, Judge Gerald C. Escala rendered the following:. (Applicable excerpts) SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY CHANCERY DIVISION: PROBATE PART BERGEN COUNTY DOCKET NO. P-480-04 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF LEE SIEGEL, Deceased. CIVIL ACTION DECISION AFTER TRIAL Appearances: Cal R. Feingold (Felig, Feingold, Edelblum & Schwartz) for plaintiff Executor Stanley R. Siegel Warren S. Robbins (Hartman & Winnicki) for defendant Sharon Gregg Tried: October 25 and 26, 2005 Decided: November 15, 2005 ESCALA, P. J., Ch.: 1.'................According to Stanley?s testimony, the understanding between him and his parents was for Stanley to use the money for the parents, if the circumstances then required their use. Then, after they passed on, he would *share the funds remaining with his sister.' '.......... At some point, while their mother was still alive, Stanley told Sharon he was in possession of the money the parents had transferred to him and that he would be sharing the money with her after their parents died. Sharon has been able to preserve certain voice messages she received from Stanley in 2002. She provided a copy of the tape of those messages (D-1ev) and a transcription of the tape as well (D-2ev). In April 2002 he told her he had $200,000 and of that half would go to her. This he restated in a February 2003 message. '............ In 2002 Lee Siegel rewrote her will and left her entire probate estate to her daughter Sharon. She named her son Stanley as executor. The earlier will left the estate to the two children, but Sharon?s share would be in trust. It is obvious that Ms. Siegel had no confidence in her daughter?s being able to administer the estate and so she entrusted that task to her son. Her goal was to facilitate a seamless administration through someone competent to do so. She did not anticipate that her simple estate would result in such extensive litigation. '.................................... Analysis The source of the angst between sister and brother appears to be her insistence that the money transferred to Stanley by their parents was given with the express condition that it be divided equally and half held by him for her benefit, and so she seeks to impose a constructive trust on these funds. The purpose of the transfer of the funds by the elder Mr. Siegel was to divest himself of assets in order to qualify for Medicaid. His divestiture from him to his son Stanley and Ms. Siegel?s subsequent transfer to him as well were gifts to Stanley. ?The requisite elements for a valid inter vivos gift are ? : (1) an unequivocal donative intent on the part of the donor; (2) an actual or symbolic delivery of the subject matter of the gift; and (3) an absolute and irrevocable relinquishment by the donor of ownership and dominion over the subject matter of the gift.? In re Dodge, 50 N.J. 192, 216 (1967). Lebitz-Freeman v. Lebitz, 353 N.J. Super. 432, 437 (App. Div. 2002). The Siegels parted with their ownership of the assets. The donative intent of the elder Siegels is well established by the proofs. The gift was delivered. Ownership of the funds passed from them to Stanley. Thus the gifting of the funds to Stanley results in his having unfettered ownership of them. They are now his to do with as he sees fit. There was no condition attending the transfer to Stanley imposed by the parents. It is only Stanley?s declaration of his intention to re-gift an undisclosed amount to his sister that is the source of that notion. And such a re-gifting would

have been after his calculating what that amount should be.' WHAT SHOULD HAVE OCCURED! (ADDITIONAL) In the assessment of another expert estate/legal malpractice attorney in New Jersey; 'Sharon: Your attorney should have called your brother's attorney as a witness and had him disqualified as counsel.' Cal Feingold knew the truth regarding the conditions of my dad's gift. He had verified them with my attorney and others. In defiance of the multiple Rules of Professional Conduct: (The State Bar ethics standards, which are supposed to govern the activities of attorneys.) He allowed a false presentation to the court. It was also my attorney's obligation to expose this.

New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct RPC. 1.2 Scope of Representation (d) A lawyer shall not counsel or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is illegal, criminal or fraudulent, I. New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct RPC 3.3 CANDOR TOWARD THE TRIBUNAL (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly (1) make a false statement of material fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting an illegal, criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; (4) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures; or (5) fail to diselose to the tribunal a material fact with knowledge that the tribunal may tend to be inisled by such failure. (b) The duties stated in paragraph (a) continue to the conclusion of the proceeding, and apply even if compliance requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by RPC 1.6. (c) A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer reasonably believes is false. (d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all relevant facts known to the lawyer that should be disclosed to permit the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse. New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct RPC 8.4 MISCONDUCT It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to: (a) Violate or attempt to violate the, Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another

.My attorney, Warren S. Robins failed to serve discovery, thereby resulting in a 2 and one half year ongoing litigation he could not, therefore, possibly win.' In light of the above, Robins then tried to coerce a settlement netting far less than the estate's value by threatening withdrawal just before trial, at which point he refused all communication. Why would Robins, for over 2 1/2 years, continuously advise me of my entitlements, as stated above, keeping the litigation active, and enmassing legal fees in excess of $88,000, without proving the case? Why would he fail to prove the case? Why would Robins do no interrogatories, no depositions, no trial briefs, and no further discovery or preparation necessary to meet the standard of evidence? Why would He let the deadline for interrogatories pass when they were obviously needed? Why would he fail to inform me of the oppositions' NEW trial stand on the issue of the trust and the assets outside of probate, only to have me find out about it at trial? At trial, why would Robins refuse my direction for him to cite the *relevant laws which he'd advised would substantiate our claims? (*Laws on Conditional giving and The Prudent Investor Act.) D. Why would Robins file no exceptions? G. Why would Robins rest without calling the key witness, my Brother, thereby losing all the evidence we needed and were only able to ask Stan on direct? This failure prevented the evidence of what Stan did with the funds from coming to light. It prevented the evidence of the true value of my inheritance from coming to light. It prevented any evidence of any embezzlement from coming to light. It assisted the oppositions case. Why would Robins assist the oppositions case? Why would Robins facilitate Feingold's violation of; RPC. 1.2 ? How could both Robins and Feingold, an accounting expert, both miss the disappearance of half the probated stocks? There are questions of other disappearing assets, too. It has been suggested to me that since these events occured from state to state, (The probate was in New Jersey. I am in California. Stan resides in Florida) then some inter state commerce violations might apply. Additional from attorney malpractice expert: 'Sharon: This is the case that prevents an attorney from collecting a fee when they have committed malpractice. Your issues should be as follows: 1. Robins did not protect the assets from your mother's estate so that you did not receive your full entitilement; 2. Robins failed to serve discovery thereby resulting in a 2 and one half year ongoing litigation due his failure to learn about the denial of the gift. 3. Robins needlessly ran up extensive legal fees on a case that he was, thereby, not likely to win. OF JUDGE GERALD C. ESCALA?

Why would Judge Escala ignore that Siegel's own testimony stated Dad's directives and intent in giving those funds; thus meeting the criteria of a trust? (*.Merriam-Webster Dictionary Main Entry: 3share Function: verb Inflected Form(s): shared; shar?ing transitive verb 1 : to divide and distribute) Was Judge Escala's decision influenced by the fact that Stan Siegel is President of NCAT, advisory consultants to the Dept. of Defence? (Submitted for consideration by Thomas Felig) Why would Escala prevent my parents' accountant from testifying? Why would Escala fail to note the incredibly sloppy lawyering by Robins, to the assistance of the oppositions case? Are there a group of New Jersey Judges acting in tandem with attorneys for their profit to the detriment of disadvantaged clients? Of Note: My Brother's wife, Judy Siegel, ran the office of Senator John Breaux for many years. Conclusion; The taking of ones property under color of law and against all law, is theft, no matter what authority does it. Generally, these takings are looked at as 'white collar crimes'. Although, in many cases, these takings leave the victums with no means to sustain their lives. (Murder without a gun.) I submit perpetrators of these are still, nothing more than thugs, less admirable than those THEY call criminal, as these perpetrators act under cloak of their authority. However, very Disturbingly, the growing number of victums who refuse to stay silent, are 'under seige'. Their families are being threatened, and there are reports of their homes and cars being sprayed with pestisides and herbisides. (Toxic stuff) (My own dog died due to this. Any bearing?) Not so white colar criminals! Where is the Prosecutor's office in all this? Where is the New Jersey State Attorney General? After contacting them about Stan's activities, I was informed by The Attorney General that due to budgetary concerns, they took a back seat when 'justice' could be sought in civil court. This lack of involvement only further opens the door for dishonest lawyers to have a field day. Where is The State Bar in the midst of all these violations of ethical conduct? I will tell you that the FOX CANNOT WATCH THE HENHOUSE! In future writings, I will expose more. ___________________________________________________________________________ Other applicable rules of professional conduct; And Stanley Siegel's voicemail tape transcriptions:

RPC 7.1 COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING A LAWYER'S SERVICE (a) A lawyer shall not make false or misleading communications about the lawyer, the lawyer's services, or any matter in which the lawyer has or seeks a professional involvement. A communication is false or misleading if it: (1) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially misleading RPC 1.4 Communication (a) A lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. (b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Comment to RPC 1.4 *(RPC. 1.1 Competence A lawyer shall not: (a) Handle or neglect a matter entrusted to the lawyer in such manner that the lawyer's conduct constitutes gross negligence. (b) Exhibit a pattern of negligence or neglect in the lawyer's handling of legal matters generally. Comment to RPC 1.1 The Court, following the recommendation of the Debevoise Committee, has retained DR 6-101 ('Failing to Act Competently'), renumbered as RPC 1.1 and entitled 'Competence,' rather than adopt the ABA's Rule 1.1. As recognized by that committee, ensuring and improving professional competence is one of the most important responsibilities of the legal profession. The use of the terms 'gross negligence' and 'pattern of negligence or neglect' provides sufficiently definite standards of prohibited conduct so as to avoid the difficulties that the more vague ABA version would create. These terms have been applied and interpreted by the Court many times. See, e.g., In re Barry, 90 N.J. 286 (1982); In re Goldstaub, 90 N.J. 1 (1982); In re Barrett, 88 N.J. 450 (1982); In re Getchius, 88 N.J. 269 (1982). By retaining the text of DR 6-101, the relevance of that case law will be preserved, )

In 1996 the Supreme Court in Saffer v. Willoughby, 143 N.J. 256 (1996)4. The court held that a negligent attorney may not collect a fee for his/her services.... In so ruling, the court relied upon the Appellate Division?s opinion in Strauss v. Fost, 213 N.J. Super. 239, 242 (App. Div. 1986) where it said the 'general rule should be that the negligent attorney is to be considered precluded from recovering his attorney?s fees.... Proximate Cause: When an attorney breaches his or her duty to a client, the attorney is liable to the client for those losses which are proximately caused by the attorney?s breach. Lieberman v. Employees Ins. of Wassau, 84 N.J. 325, 341 (1980); Lemoine Ave v. Finco, Inc., 272 N.J. Super. 478, 488 (App. Div. 1994); Gautaim v. DeLuca, 215 N.J. Super. 388, 397 (App. Div. 1987). In more complex cases where the attorney?s inadequate advice combines with other causes to lead to a client?s injury, a different standard is applied. In such cases the test is whether the attorney?s inadequate advice was a substantial factor contributing to the loss. Id. at 419. See also Snyder v. Baumecker, 708 F.Supp. 1451, 1463 (D.N.J. 1989); State of New Jersey v. Jersey Central Power & Light Co., 69 N.J. 102, 110 (1976 . ** \> BROTHER'S TRANSCRIPT #1 > > SBC Voicemail announcement; > 'From No one. Sent Sunday, August 31st , at 10:40

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

a.m. Originally sent, Wednesday, Feb. 5th, at 9:47 a.m.' (2003) STAN'S VOICE; 'Sharon, this is Stanley. ......................... With regard to the $100,000; I have over $100,000 for you because it's been earning interest. And, you'll get that money because I was told to hold that money until Mother passes away. So when you get the money from her will, you'll get that money , also. in steps of $20,000 a year, cause, that's part of the tax problem. 'I'm not writing you any letters. I'm not sending you anything.' (NOTE;THIS WAS THE RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST FOR A WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF THE TRUST MONEY , FROM HIM.) STAN cont. 'If you have trouble with me, you give me a call. And , until I hear from you, you won't hear from me. And I would suggest you leave your mother alone.' End of message.

(NOTE; BROTHER'S STATEMENT REFUSING ME LETTERS, WAS HIS RESPONSE TO MY REQUEST FOR A > WRITTEN VERIFICATION OF > THE TRUST MONEY FROM HIM.) (NOTE; IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED THAT THERE WAS > NO TAX PROBLEM IF I > GOT THE MONEY OUTRIGHT. IT WAS JUST SOMETHING STAN > SUBSEQUENTLY TOLD > MOM, WELL AFTER DAD'S DEATH, TO CONVINCE HER TO > ALLOW THE MONEY TO BE > RELEASED THAT WAY, SO HE COULD HOLD ONTO IT FOR FIVE > MORE YEARS.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > TRANSCRIPTION II. SBC voicemail announcement: 'First saved message: From no one. Sent Sunday, August 31st, at 10:38 a.m. Originally, sent Sunday, April 14th, 2002 at 12:11 p.m. STAN'S VOICE; 'Hi Sharon. This is Stan. I'm talking as lowly as I can........................................................ I thought I would call you and let you know exactly how much money will be available if Mother should pass away , today. I have $100,000, and that $100,000 is going to you. There is some money

> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

from Mother's pension fund that she left to me , to go to you, as part of that same fund. I don't know exactly how much it is. But, I estimate that it's probably about $25,000. ' (NOTE: THOUGH IN HIS 'SETTLEMENT OFFER', THIS IS NOT NOTED IN HIS ACCOUNTING TO THE COURT.) STAN: 'The rest of Mother's assets, as far as I know, is approximately $50,000 in, uh, money markets and stocks. Also, she has the apartment, which is also yours. And all of her paintings, which are also yours . And all of her furniture, which is also yours. However, with the furniture and the painting and the apartment, uh uh, I should say, the furniture and the painting, it costs money to ship it. So, you'll have to uh probably sell it here, to avoid that. However, I thouhght that it would be interesting for you to know that. So what we're talking about, as far as I can tell, right now, less the expenses to bury Mother,would be , somewhere in the neighborhood of about $220,000, as far as I could estimate. Bye-Bye.'

Sharon beverly hills, California U.S.A. Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Attorneys and Lawyers

Judge escala Ignores Laws and Blames Litigants
The following is an excerpt of additional finding by Judge Escala the aforementioned case report. It appears on a legal blogsite. (http://www.njlawblog.com/2006/01/articles/litigation/judge-cautions-litigants-regarding-trialcosts/#comments ) It regards the exhorbident attorney fees in the case. Again, Judge escala ignored the laws and rules of professional conduct in his findings, and blamed the litigants. The judge ignores the fact that the attorneys broke multiple rules of professional conduct, and , by law, are NOT ENTITLED TO COLLECT FEES. My response to this blog.is below Judge Cautions Litigants Regarding Trial Costs Posted on January 12, 2006 by Lewis J. Pepperman

The Matter of the Estate of Lee Siegel, deceased In The Matter of the Estate of Lee Siegel, deceased, Docket No. P-480-04, Judge Gerald C. Escala, Presiding Judge of the Chancery Division for Bergen County, rendered a decision on December 8, 2005, following a two-day bench trial in an estate matter. The decision centered around attorney fee applications made in the case. While finding the attorney fee applications themselves to be reasonable, the Court admonished the litigants and counsel for having failed to perform a reality check as they proceeded with the case toward trial. Judge Escala noted that: 'All too often, litigants leave common sense behind when they embark on litigation in which they convince themselves they are destined to prevail, oblivious to the fact that they might not be successful. They also fail to notice the sometimes astounding amount of time in legal services (and costs) they are incurring to pursue their claim. It must be because in addition to their self-conviction of the justice of their case, they also firmly believe they will not have to pay for the legal services, so they proceed vigorously without regard to the costs. Or, they have a notion that counsel fees can be assessed by the court from some unidentified source, that is, one not related to the cause at hand.' The Court went on to explain that New Jersey follows the American Rule with regard to payment of legal fees, which requires that each side pay their own legal fees, with certain limited exceptions. Judge Escala's words should be seriously considered by every attorney and client that becomes involved in litigation. Our courts are not a place to litigate personal feelings or personal agendas. Economic realities must play a key, if not defining, role. The toll in terms of cost, time and emotion is often not appreciated at the outset of a case. Parties should assess the strength of their case at the outset and honestly consider the strength of the other side. Playing the devil's advocate is a must. Attempting to settle early on through the process of mediation is a wise course to follow. It is true that certain cases will go to trial. However, all trial attorneys and litigants should heed the well written words of Judge Escala. MY RESPONSE; DON'T BLAME THE LITIGANT FOR FIGHTING FOR WHAT IS THEIRS WHEN IT MEANS THEIR SURVIVAL. Missing data will compromise the truth of any case finding. As one of the litigants in this one, I can tell you that there was a truckload in the Judge's determination, including the laws of the State of New Jersey with which Judge Escala is very familiar. If you want to know the true reasons the legal fees were so high and out of proportion, go to the url herein. The attorneys and the opposing party made out like bandits because the case DID NOT expeditiously and righteously settle. This is only possible when Judge's facilitate this behavior. My brother, Stanley Siegel, executor/trustee of my inheritances, accepted gift funds from my Dad, Moe Siegel, under the condition that half be held for me and disburssed upon my mother's death. He stated this under oath. Siegel also stated, under oath, that he 'felt no obligation to reveal the investment activities of my portion of those funds for the 11 years he held them'. Reason: 'Since the funds were transferred to him, it was ALL HIS money.' Where was the consideration of the laws of conditional giving and the Prudent Investor's Act in the Judge's determination? At trial, Why didn't 'my attorney' Warren S. Robins argue those very laws he and three other attorneys advised were the basis for my entitlement? The true conditions attached to the giving of those funds were previously verified by Cal Feingold,

brother's attorney. In defiance of the RPCs, Why did Feingold allow a false presentation to the tribunal? I am a 62 year old disabled woman. My parents intended those bequeathments to secure my old age. There was no reason I shouldn't have received my full entitlement under the true provisions of the law. Yet, even when I agreed to settle for much less than that, to ensure I had enough to survive my senior years, my brother used the funds I inherited from my mom's estate to keep as much as he could from my dad's. Although he walked away with less than he fought for, it cost him nothing to profit what he did and throw me into homelessness and indigence. This only works when Judges' findings facilitate this behavior and attorneys work for their pocketbook, not their client's welfare. DON'T BLAME THE LITIGANT FOR FIGHTING FOR WHAT IS THEIRS WHEN IT MEANS THEIR SURVIVAL.

Stark & Stark : New York Estate Planning Lawyer :: Trusts ..... http://www.stark-stark.com/attorney-lawyer-feed-1016089.html
Judge Cautions Litigants Regarding Trial Costs The Matter of the Estate of Lee Siegel, deceased In The Matter of the Estate of Lee Siegel, deceased, Docket No. P-480-04, Judge Gerald C. Escala, Presiding Judge of the Chancery Division for Bergen County, rendered a decision on December 8, 2005, following a two-day bench trial in an estate matter. The decision centered around attorney fee applications made in the case. While finding the attorney fee applications themselves to be reasonable, the Court admonished the litigants and counsel for having failed to perform a reality check as they proceeded with the case toward trial. Judge Escala noted that: "All too often, litigants leave common sense behind when they embark on litigation in which they convince themselves they are destined to prevail, oblivious to the fact that they might not be successful. They also fail to notice the sometimes astounding amount of time in legal services (and costs) they are incurring to pursue their claim. It must be because in addition to their ....


								
To top