Complaint Review: Garces & Grabler - Plainfield New Jersey

I was contacted by a parallegal after a auto accident.It is almost a year and I saw a few surgens and all reccomend surgury.I saw a specialist and he believes I can tend to the pain and only I would know when to get it.I saw a Lawyer from this firm and he was pushing for me to get it done.I amnot doing that until later if at all.my paralegal called and stated he has another atourney who is representing me and he will set up another day to sit down and talk.I had enough already,it seems im being strung out here and this firm makes no attempt to contact me other than inform me of something I already was briefed on.I am told when I call that the case is being taken lightly by adjuster.I need some info if anyone has had this problem with them.I would like to know if they have my back or is this just a case of smoke and mirrors.I did notice that one attourney no longer practices there and I wonder if this is just another ethics violation.I have not spoke to the attourney only the paralegal and have not heard anything from him unless i call and when i did he seems bothered i called.

I would like to bring everyone up to date as of this date and a short time befor Eric Lentz has been suspended  from practicing law He has to make restitution and pay fines and other things I just hope he is never able to hurt another person and bring shame to a great profession . see the New jersey bar and the new jersey lawyers fund for client protection if you have a complaint  to add

On behalf of my client, Rip-off Report, I am filing this response to the rebuttal posted by Garces & Grabler, P.C. about the posting originally filed on February 25, 2002 by a former client of their firm and Mr. Eric Lentz. First, I want to point out that the Garces & Grabler rebuttal identifies the former client by name for the first time. The former client chose to remain anonymous when she filed the report, likely because it involved her personal medical information. Garces & Grabler, however, not only posted her name, but also specific details about her medical situation and financial situation. Rule 1.6 of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct provide that a lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client consents except for disclosures impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation. Here, there was no consent and the disclosures were not impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation. Rip-off Report understands Mr. Lentz and his law firms' desire to defend his handling of the case. We appreciate that there are two sides to every story. The posting by Garces & Grabler, however, takes indefensible positions. The posting criticizes Rip-off Report for not properly investigating the facts. There are over 90,000 reports posted on Rip-off Report. Rip-off Report is not in a position to investigate every filing, or even every filing that is disputed. The rebuttal also takes the position that the continued posting of the articles directly, intentionally, and tortiously interferes with the economic advantages and business prospects of Mr. Lentz and the Garces & Grabler law firm and puts Rip-off Report on notice of their demand that Rip-off Report cease and desist in allowing further publication of the posting, which they claim is slanderous and libelous. Since Garces & Grabler, P.C. has chosen to post its demand letter, Rip-off Report has asked me to post my response. The operation of an internet web site upon which others post statements is an activity that is governed by the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C.A. 230. Carafano v. Metrosplash.com, Inc. 339 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2003); Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997). 47 U.S.C. 230 provides that No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider. Because Rip-off Report can not legally be treated as a publisher or speaker of information provided by a third party, they can not be liable for claims of defamation, invasion of privacy, negligence, and interference with contract. Id.; Schneider v. Amazon.com. Inc., 31 P.3d 37 (Wash. App. 2001). Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act to promote the free exchange of information and ideas over the Internet. Carafano. As the Fourth Circuit explained in Zeran, Congress deliberately chose not to deter harmful online speech by means of civil liability on companies that serve as intermediaries for other parties' potentially injurious messages. Id. The Communications Decency Act preempts state law to the extent that state law allows defamation claims against web site operators and on-line service providers for content they did not create. Preemption is required where state law conflicts with the express language of a federal statute. Doe. v. America Online, 783 So.2d 1010 (Fl. 2001) cert. denied 122 S.Ct. 208 (2001). Further, the Communications Decency Act applies even where the provider of the interactive computer service had notice and refused to remove the offending material. Id. at 1012-1013. Thus, while Garces & Grabler and Eric Lentz may post their position on the Rip-off Report, they may not force Rip-off Report to remove the posting. Maria Crimi Speth Jaburg & Wilk, P.C.

The law firm of Garces & Grabler, P.C. and Eric Lentz, Esquire; an attorney with this law firm have had the opportunity to review the content of your website, Rip-off Report.com badbusinessbureau.com, in particular, the unsubstantiated comments characterizing Mr. Lentz as an idiot, incompetent ripoff lawyer at Garces & Grabler Attorneys, Plainfield, New Jersey. While we appreciate the public service offered by your website to aggrieved individuals, it is entirely inappropriate to publish baseless unsubstantiated information regarding anyone. The reckless publication of unsubstantiated information on your website will not be tolerated. Specifically, on or about February 24, 1998, Ms. Sabin was a 44-year old woman who fell roller-skating at an indoor rink in New Jersey. She sustained a broken ankle. Her fall was recorded on videotape. Unfortunately for Ms. Sabin, she incurred subsequent medical bills of approximately $15,000.00. She had no medical insurance. At a pre-trial arbitration proceeding, an independent court appointed arbitrator assessed 50% liability against Ms. Sabin. Given her comparative liability for the fall, and the probability of diminished success on the merits of the claim, in March 2001, Ms. Sabin freely and voluntarily settled the case against the roller skating facility for $15,000.00. This law firm worked hard to have her outstanding medical bills reduced in light of the reduced monetary discovery. In fact, due to this law firm's efforts, many of the medical providers reduced their respective bills by at least 25 %. According to Mr. Lentz, Ms. Sabin was a lovely woman with little assets. She had brought her suit to pay the medical bills for which she had received the benefit of treatment. This law firm actually reduced its legal fee, from the usual and customary 33%, to 25%, to accommodate her financial situation. Ms. Sabin actually netted a tax-free amount of $3,125.00. Unfortunately for Ms. Sabin, she became very angry and irate when she learned that she had been sued, in an unrelated collection lawsuit filed by a doctor, for $622.57. Neither Mr. Lentz nor this law firm were apprised of this medical obligation prior to Ms. Sabin settling her case. Therefore, to call Mr. Lentz an idiot, incompetent or a ripoff because of Ms. Sabin's obligation to pay a medical bill for services that she benefited from is totally without factual merit. In fact, as was suggested on your website, the appropriate action for any allegedly aggrieved client is to either file an ethics complaint for unethical behavior or file for fee arbitration. In this instance, Ms. Saban chose to do neither and, instead, vented out in a libelous and slanderous manner. Instead of your organization properly investigating Mr. Lentz's version of events, published on your website on April 14 and 16th of this year, Rip-off Report.com badbusinessbureau.com simply continued to disseminate damaging and utterly false information. The continued publication of these articles directly, intentionally and tortiously interferes with the economic advantages and business prospects of both Mr. Lentz and this law firm. This law firm is now in the process of creating and maintaining a website. Given the factual circumstances of Ms. Sabin's case, it is completely inappropriate to tag either Mr. Lentz or this law firm with the rip-off report when prospective clients or members of the legal community attempt to log on. Ms. Sabin's complaint has been posted for over two years without our knowledge. Allowing such a baseless opinion to remain on your site is irresponsible. Moreover, these unwarranted articles clearly disparage the moral, reputation and professional character of Mr. Lentz, a personal injury trial lawyer with over twenty-seven (27) years of experience. Additionally, this law firm's fine reputation in providing quality legal services has been irreparably harmed. This letter serves to put you, and Rip-off Report.com badbusinessbureau.com., on notice of Mr. Lentz's and Garces & Grabler's demand for Rip-off Report.com badbusinessbureau.com to cease and desist in allowing further publication of the afore-described articles and the slanderous and libelous statements contained therein.

Congratulations Eric! In your own words you have successfully cast yourself in the role of the stereotypical low-life lawyer. Why don't you go threaten and intimidate someone from Watchung or Westfield. Not that someone from either of these towns would want to touch your office with a 10-foot pole! You really need to consider moving your practice (assuming that's the correct word in your case) to a smaller state where lawyers tend to "in-breed." There are enough lawyers in New Jersey that there is probably one or two who make a living off of going after types like you. It sounds like you've had your obnoxious arrogant attitude for some time. So it looks like you'll be generating some more "satisfied customers"--maybe enough for a class action suit against your firm. I understand class action suits are more resistent to the type of defendant (not you, of course!) who thinks they can defeat their opposition by "appealing the case to death." Naturally Counselor, your wealth of wisdom on this subject would be most welcome. Lastly, I really do hope, someday, you decide to go after the "wrong" person for fabricated injuries to your firm. What have judges up your way been imposing, as penalties, under the State's Frivolous Claims Statute?

This claim was posted several years ago. The claim is false and libelous. We have replied, but continue to be asked questions by clients who only read the complaint and not the response. All facts in the rebuttal can be documented, and supplied upon request. We will redact the client's name, even though our former client had avenues to pursue this claim if it were valid, by our invitation to contact New Jersey Bar Association. Your web page is of service, however, it continues to be abused, and is a platform that allows disgruntled individuals to make false statements. There should be a means to remove fictitious posts, I would appreciate your response; rather than fifty years from now continue to be libeled.

This claim was posted several years ago. The claim is false and libelous. We have replied, but continue to be asked questions by clients who only read the complaint and not the response. All facts in the rebuttal can be documented, and supplied upon request. We will redact the client's name, even though our former client had avenues to pursue this claim if it were valid, by our invitation to contact New Jersey Bar Association. Your web page is of service, however, it continues to be abused, and is a platform that allows disgruntled individuals to make false statements. There should be a means to remove fictitious posts, I would appreciate your response; rather than fifty years from now continue to be libeled.

This claim was posted several years ago. The claim is false and libelous. We have replied, but continue to be asked questions by clients who only read the complaint and not the response. All facts in the rebuttal can be documented, and supplied upon request. We will redact the client's name, even though our former client had avenues to pursue this claim if it were valid, by our invitation to contact New Jersey Bar Association. Your web page is of service, however, it continues to be abused, and is a platform that allows disgruntled individuals to make false statements. There should be a means to remove fictitious posts, I would appreciate your response; rather than fifty years from now continue to be libeled.

The individual who has filed this claim, fell at a roller skating arena. She was the first or second individual on the surface that date. Defendant claimed that it performed routine cleaning the evening prior. Defendant produced a video of the fall. It did not show any debris. New Jersey has a statue which immunizes facililties as this arena. We claimed that the statute did not apply due to our client's claim of improper maintenance and monitoring. Our client also did not have any medical insurance. We were able to compromise all KNOWN medical bills, although that is not our function. We were able to present to the client a settlement offer. All known bills were paid, and the client compensated. Our firm was referred this case from another larger firm, that does litigation; our firm is known for taking difficult cases, that most firms reject ( see post on McKenney v. Jersey City Medical Center from N.J. Supreme COurt). IN lieu of taking our agreed upon fee, we reduce the fee to allow the client to be compensated. Following the resolution of the matter, we were contacted by the client, who claimed a doctor had presented a bill late. WE attempted to determine if that bill was related to the fall as it was from a cardiologist and our client's injuries were orthopedic in nature. The client accepted the bill, and paid same. If the client has any valid dispute we invite them to go to NJ Ethics - there is no charge; or to submit the claim to small claim ct. In the interim we will be mailing the client a demand for full disclosure and retraction, has her post is inaccurate and fails to indicate the "rest of the story." Further we did not learn of her complaint until two years after posting.

My husband was battling with his ex over child support and visitation. Needless to say, we (or more accurately, I) did alot of the documentation preparation for the case and long story short, when all was said and done, we got the bill from the attorney for all of the "reviews" and "pleadings"...etc. We recognized this as a shrewd attempt at ripping us off, so we filed a complaint with the Fee Arbitration Board (there's a nominal fee and it's according to how much your attorney's bill is). If I remember correctly, it was under $50 bucks if your bill was under $5k, but don't quote me on this! Once they got notice of this dispute, they drew up a letter of agreement that they would accept payment of a reduced amount so the Fee Arbitration complaint died. Apparently Fee Arbitration is a "dirty" word to have in your corporate files, so it's probably worth a shot! Good Luck!

You may wish to file a complaint, against this atty, with the Judicial Ethics Committee in your state. This committee, at least here, operates under the state supreme court. It's purpose is to investigate unethical practices of attorneys. They do everything from censure to disbarment. Good Luck