Law Offices Of Jef Henninger ESQ Joseph Compitello ESQ Took a retainer to appear in Trenton without consultaion, then expained there was nothing that be accomplished with him being there for a preliminary hearing and asked for addiontional funds to continue to represent me.
I was referred to Mr. Compitello for an administrative DMV case through a friend, who advised me of his relitively small retainter, which i provided in cash, without speking in any detail to what servicesw would be provided.
Mr. Compitello then met me in Trenton at the DMV at which point he expained to me that a lesser suspemsion would be offered that I could either accept or take the matter up for a formal hearing, which would then cost more for him to appear. There was nothing other than an appearnce where he sat silent next to me while the DMV personell stated their offer.
Had I known this would be the procedure beforehand, which could have been established with a very brief consultation I would have elected not to obtain counsel for this matter at this time at such a cost to me. When I elected to take the matter for a formal hearing, pro-se, I was not notified of a hearing date and myself and Mr. Compitello's office were named on a failure to appear notice.
At this time i reached out to office to detirmine if they had been notified of said date, Mr. Compitello informed me that they were not notified also, which would make the ensuing suspension null and void. Mr. Compitello then drafted a letter outlining that, as a courtesy to me which he would later assert. However when the Office responded to Mr. compitello's letter he neglected to inform me of their response or of a proper course of action to mitigate the ensuing consequences.
He essentially took a sum of money to provide an unecessary unwarrented appearence, and when it came time that a dispute arised, did the bare minimum because as he stated, he did not owe me any thing at the time because his retainer had run out with a single appearence where nothing was to be gained from having counsel.
1 Updates & Rebuttals
Jim
Anaheim,California,
United States
Not Sure I Agree
#2Consumer Comment
Tue, February 18, 2020
Mr. Compitello then met me in Trenton at the DMV at which point he expained to me that a lesser suspemsion would be offered that I could either accept or take the matter up for a formal hearing, which would then cost more for him to appear. There was nothing other than an appearnce where he sat silent next to me while the DMV personell stated their offer. I guess there are a couple of things here. First, you seem to imply the attorney had spoken with the administrative counsel at the DMV and either found out or negotiated the lower suspension at which point it was your choice to accept or reject. Clearly, the attorney had performed work on your behalf, right? I mean there would be no way he could have possibly known that, right?
Now, did he advise you whether to accept the deal, or not? I mean that's sort of an important point here. I suspect the answer was for you to accept the deal. Why? Because he probably thought the lesser charge was the best deal you were going to get.
Second, I have been through this sort of thing before. The administrative officer from the DMV generally has a pretty open and shut case by the time you have your hearing. The DMV operates under the presumption that you are competent to drive, and any evidence to the contrary means you are going to have your license suspended for some period depending on the infraction. I mean it's probably the only time I can think of legally where you are completely guilty until proven innocent.
Unless you have detailed evidence and a very reasonable explanation eliminating the suspension completely, there is nothing really a lawyer can help with in these sorts of cases. In my case, I had a lawyer but the purpose of the lawyer's presence was to make certain my rights were not trampled by the DMV counsel. He sat very quietly, but then he also advised me that's what he was there for. I also had evidence that reinstated my license...and he insured I would get the chance to present it....but that's another story.
Now, could you have gone pro se in the hearing? Yes, and I did so during my first hearing. That was a huge mistake for me that literally cost thousands of dollars. It is more than possible that had you not retained an attorney, you would have had a more serious suspension. How much might that have cost you?
Had I known this would be the procedure beforehand, which could have been established with a very brief consultation I would have elected not to obtain counsel for this matter at this time at such a cost to me. You seem to be operating under the assumption you could have obtained the lesser suspension yourself. Don't count on it. The administrative officer would have seen a sucker and you would have had the book thrown at you. So yeah you would not have had the ability to speak to the administrative officer prior to your hearing to plead for a lower suspension, which then voids your statement here.
In short there was not an unwarranted appearance as you assert and there is little for him to dispute because all of the evidence they present is basically the truth unless YOU have evidence to mitigate theirs. If you don't have such evidence, then the attorney did everything he could do to make sure your rights weren't trod on.
Mr. Compitello then drafted a letter outlining that, as a courtesy to me which he would later assert. However when the Office responded to Mr. compitello's letter he neglected to inform me of their response or of a proper course of action to mitigate the ensuing consequences. Yes, that letter was done as a courtesy to you - I'm not sure why you're questioning that. The issue I see was the DMV's incompetence in their failure to properly notify you of your hearing date. There is no consequence except to reschedule the hearing date - that's it.
It's not a matter of whether I think this guy is competent. This has to do with the invalid opinion you seem to have regarding his performance.