Print the value of index0
  • Report:  #408365

Complaint Review: Manchanda Law Firm / Rahul Manchanda

Manchanda Law Firm / Rahul Manchanda Provided poor representation and misrepresented itself. 2029 Century Park East California

  • Reported By:
    Murrieta California
  • Submitted:
    Tue, January 06, 2009
  • Updated:
    Tue, October 28, 2014
  • Manchanda Law Firm / Rahul Manchanda
    80 Wall Street, New York, New york
    2029 Century Park East, California
    U.S.A.
  • Phone:
    212-968-8600
  • Category:

I contacted Manchanda law firm after my brother was arrested and detained awaiting deportation. I explained that he did not commit any crime and was simply walking down the street when stopped. Raul called and said that this was a very easy case and before I know it we will have him released and home. He sounded good but I was to become aware that his ego far outclasses his law skills.

So, I signed a retainer and paid $5000 up front for their services. Needless to say that this was a huge mistake. First they told me to inform my brother not to sign anything, not to take voluntary departure and then let them handle it.

We had a court date on Dec 23rd and Manchanda informed me that they will have to fly a lawyer out of NY to CA to represent us but they clearly list a CA office on their website so when I asked about why a lawyer needs to be flown from NY they skirted the question. One of the main reasons we chose Manchanda was because they had a west coast office.

When the lawyer flew out she then advised us that we should take voluntary departure but by then it was too late as an expedited departure was issued on dec 12th without our knowledge. Raul insisted that we knew and withheld this information which is totally wrong because it was never explained to my brother and because of the advice from Manchanda my brother said he won't sign anything and with ICE not explaining what it was we had no clue.

Not only that but when the attorney was here in CA she mentioned she had another client to see that day. Why did I pay $1000 for her to fly out here if she had another client?. Why wasn't this cost split?. These are questions Manchanda so conveniently never answer.

Why would he tell us not to take Voluntary departure then change his mind when it is too late.

After the last phone conversation with a Manchanda lawyer it was determined that there is not a lot they can do besides file a petition to stop the deportation but he will not do that until we pay another $3800. Why was I not informed of the running costs and only recieved a bill after persistently asking for it? Why did they go over the $5k without informing us that we were over?

Then the bill was ridiculous in what it listed. For a 20min phone conversation they charged us $1050.

This company left us in a worse state than when we started and then try to put it on us and say it was out fault and we withheld information. By checking this website it is apparent that this company has a reputation for this sort of practice. Thankfully I have a new lawyer and they are fully aware of Manchanda's record.

Steve b
Murrieta, California
U.S.A.

2 Updates & Rebuttals


MAN ESQ

Brooklyn,
New York,

Notice of Subpoena

#3Consumer Comment

Mon, October 27, 2014

Re:       MLO - v.- Younglawyer et al.

            New York State, Supreme Court, Kings County Index No.: 506175/2014

Please be advised that a court proceeding has been initiated regarding this posting in which the plaintiff seeks to learn the author’s identity by subpoena. The lawsuit is in the Supreme Court, State of New York, County of Kings, located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201. Any parties objecting to this request may do so anonymously by responding herein and must state the basis for such objection in accordance with applicable law. Objections made in bad faith or without merit may be subject to a motion for contempt of court, attorneys’ fees, or court ordered sanctions against the poster. The basis for the lawsuit is a defamation action against the defendants. 


MAN ESQ

Brooklyn,
New York,

Notice of Court Proceeding

#3Consumer Comment

Tue, October 14, 2014

Please be advised that a court proceeding has been initiated regarding this posting in which the plaintiff seeks to learn the author’s identity. The lawsuit is in the Supreme Court, State of New York, County of Kings, located at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, NY 11201.

The caption is set forth below:

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF KINGS

-------------------------------------------------------------------X

MLO,

 

Plaintiffs,

 

-against-

 

“YOUNGLAWYER”, “ANONYMOUS[1]”, “CLINTON”, “NYC ATTORNEY”, “DEEDEE”,

“GRACE W.”, “ANONYMOUS[2]”, “J.AHMEDI”, “STEVE B”, “MARYIO07”, and John Does 1-9, names fictitious representing the anonymous posters of

defamatory content described herein,

 

Defendants.

-------------------------------------------------------------------X

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Index No.: 506175/2014

 

 

Respond to this Report!