- Report: #190010
Complaint Review: Snyder And Associates - Salisbury Maryland
-
Author Confirmed
Why?
Snyder And Associates
1918 Northwood Drive Suite B Salisbury, 21841 Maryland, U.S.A.
Phone:
302-749-1998
Web:
N/A
Categories:
Business Rating:
(0)
Tell us has your experience with this business or person been good?
Albert Snyder, ESQ ripoff Attorney Salisbury Maryland
*Author of original report: more information
*Consumer Comment: You need to file a complaint
*Author of original report: Aafes-Viernheim, Europe, USA Thanx you!
*Consumer Comment: For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission
*Consumer Comment: For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission
*Consumer Comment: For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission
*Consumer Comment: For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission
*Author of original report: How can I regain our Cash Paid
A briefing of Ineffective Counsel.
This next passage is the detailed letter from our new lawyer approaching the previous lawyer for an explanation on his actions:
"I have been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Carmona, see EOIR 28, to attempt to reopen the removal proceedings of Mr. Carmona, concluded on January 31, 2006, with the entry of an order of voluntary departure, and waiver of all appeals.
In essence, Mr. Carmona alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleges that he entered into a contract whereby he agreed to pay you $ 3,500, and you agreed to represent him (effectively) in removal proceedings. All along, given the substantial consideration, he thought that you were actively working towards an effective defense from removal, especially because, in your contract, you listed that the mentioned consideration included two master hearings and one individual hearing. Instead, he alleges that you sent him by himself at a master hearing, and the second time on January 31, 2006, you attended a second master hearing, where he was simply told that his choice was between deportation and voluntary departure.
More substantively, Mr. Carmona alleges that the assistance of counsel was ineffective because he was not informed of the relief of cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents under INA ? 240A(b), and he alleges that he is prima facie eligible for this relief: he has been in the United States since 1992, has a United States wife and three United States children. Most importantly, Mr. Carmona alleges that he would be able to show ?exceptional? and ?extremely unusual hardship,? to his family because of the particular circumstances in which his wife and his child Amanda, both victims of previous abuse and prone to bouts of depression, find themselves. As he was never even informed of this relief, he was deprived of the opportunity to have his day in court, exactly that ?individual? hearing that you promised him in the contract, but which never took place.
Mr. Carmona alleges that his case was never even analyzed and his options were never explained. He was told that because of the petition filed by his wife he could simply go back to Mexico and pick up his visa. However, he was never really explained that this might not happen for at least ten years: if the discretionary waiver from the ten year bar of INA ? 212(a)(9)(B) is not granted there is in fact no administrative or judicial review of such consular determinations, in sum no avenue of relief.
These are, in essence, the allegations incorporated in the Carmonas' affidavits, herewith attached. Pursuant to pertinent case caw, see Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637, 638 (BIA 1988), I am herewith informing you of same, so as to allow you an opportunity to respond."
From this letter our NEW lawyer sent to this old lawyer, Mr. Snyder sends my new lawyer a letter to state the following:
Mr. Snyder States "I have just opened your letter concerning my representation of Mr. Carmona. Needless to say, what you and the Carmona's state concerning possible relief in proceedings greatly troubles me and I myself am struggling to understand what happened in the course of my representation. The Carmona's are fine people and I am mortified to think that I mis-served them. Given your letter and your entry of appearance, I believe that I am now foreclosed from communicating with the and will not. Kindly convey to them for me that I will cooperate fully with you in the reopening proceedings, which from your letter appears to be fully their due. If, as part of your efforts to reopen proceedings, you think it useful for me in the first instance to communicate with the Office of Chief Counsel in order to shoulder full responsibility for a flawed pleading, in order to elicit his cooperation in a Motion to Reopen or to accomplish in some other way a re-pleading to the NTA, I will do that expeditiously. What is crucial now is for Mr. Carmona to get back into proceedings and request the relief you describe as available. I naturally am concerned with the propriety of my own conduct and should respond to certain statements in the affidavits, but that is for another time. I hope to develop the matter further with you by phone today" Sent by Albert Snyder sent to our present lawyer.
Since this, I have attempted to approach Mr. Snyder for my refund (3 different times, certified confirmation) of the amount I paid into this lawyer. He has been uncooperative. The present lawyer's fee of $5000.00 and the $3500.00 for the loss of Mr. Snyder and another fee of $110.00 for a motion to reopen case has cost us over 7500.00 in fees resulting from Mr. Snyder's misconduct regarding the preparation for our case in front of the judge on Jan 31,2006. I have all supporting documents to prove these facts.
Gabriel
Millsboro, Delaware
U.S.A.
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Attorneys and Lawyers
This next passage is the detailed letter from our new lawyer approaching the previous lawyer for an explanation on his actions:
"I have been retained by Mr. and Mrs. Carmona, see EOIR 28, to attempt to reopen the removal proceedings of Mr. Carmona, concluded on January 31, 2006, with the entry of an order of voluntary departure, and waiver of all appeals.
In essence, Mr. Carmona alleges ineffective assistance of counsel. He alleges that he entered into a contract whereby he agreed to pay you $ 3,500, and you agreed to represent him (effectively) in removal proceedings. All along, given the substantial consideration, he thought that you were actively working towards an effective defense from removal, especially because, in your contract, you listed that the mentioned consideration included two master hearings and one individual hearing. Instead, he alleges that you sent him by himself at a master hearing, and the second time on January 31, 2006, you attended a second master hearing, where he was simply told that his choice was between deportation and voluntary departure.
More substantively, Mr. Carmona alleges that the assistance of counsel was ineffective because he was not informed of the relief of cancellation of removal for non-lawful permanent residents under INA ? 240A(b), and he alleges that he is prima facie eligible for this relief: he has been in the United States since 1992, has a United States wife and three United States children. Most importantly, Mr. Carmona alleges that he would be able to show ?exceptional? and ?extremely unusual hardship,? to his family because of the particular circumstances in which his wife and his child Amanda, both victims of previous abuse and prone to bouts of depression, find themselves. As he was never even informed of this relief, he was deprived of the opportunity to have his day in court, exactly that ?individual? hearing that you promised him in the contract, but which never took place.
Mr. Carmona alleges that his case was never even analyzed and his options were never explained. He was told that because of the petition filed by his wife he could simply go back to Mexico and pick up his visa. However, he was never really explained that this might not happen for at least ten years: if the discretionary waiver from the ten year bar of INA ? 212(a)(9)(B) is not granted there is in fact no administrative or judicial review of such consular determinations, in sum no avenue of relief.
These are, in essence, the allegations incorporated in the Carmonas' affidavits, herewith attached. Pursuant to pertinent case caw, see Matter of Lozada, 19 I&N Dec. 637, 638 (BIA 1988), I am herewith informing you of same, so as to allow you an opportunity to respond."
From this letter our NEW lawyer sent to this old lawyer, Mr. Snyder sends my new lawyer a letter to state the following:
Mr. Snyder States "I have just opened your letter concerning my representation of Mr. Carmona. Needless to say, what you and the Carmona's state concerning possible relief in proceedings greatly troubles me and I myself am struggling to understand what happened in the course of my representation. The Carmona's are fine people and I am mortified to think that I mis-served them. Given your letter and your entry of appearance, I believe that I am now foreclosed from communicating with the and will not. Kindly convey to them for me that I will cooperate fully with you in the reopening proceedings, which from your letter appears to be fully their due. If, as part of your efforts to reopen proceedings, you think it useful for me in the first instance to communicate with the Office of Chief Counsel in order to shoulder full responsibility for a flawed pleading, in order to elicit his cooperation in a Motion to Reopen or to accomplish in some other way a re-pleading to the NTA, I will do that expeditiously. What is crucial now is for Mr. Carmona to get back into proceedings and request the relief you describe as available. I naturally am concerned with the propriety of my own conduct and should respond to certain statements in the affidavits, but that is for another time. I hope to develop the matter further with you by phone today" Sent by Albert Snyder sent to our present lawyer.
Since this, I have attempted to approach Mr. Snyder for my refund (3 different times, certified confirmation) of the amount I paid into this lawyer. He has been uncooperative. The present lawyer's fee of $5000.00 and the $3500.00 for the loss of Mr. Snyder and another fee of $110.00 for a motion to reopen case has cost us over 7500.00 in fees resulting from Mr. Snyder's misconduct regarding the preparation for our case in front of the judge on Jan 31,2006. I have all supporting documents to prove these facts.
Gabriel
Millsboro, Delaware
U.S.A.
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on Attorneys and Lawyers
8 Updates & Rebuttals
Gabriel
Millsboro,Delaware,
U.S.A.
How can I regain our Cash Paid
#2Author of original report
Sun, May 07, 2006
How would I regain the cash paid in to this lawyer? Would I take him to Civil Court? Would I have to do this in My home state or His? Please help?
Aafes
Viernheim,Europe,
U.S.A.
For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission
#3Consumer Comment
Fri, May 05, 2006
Sorry, I noticed you were in Delaware and missed that the attorney is in Maryland. For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission (part of the courts, not the Bar Association) you can reach them by mail: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland People's Resource Center 100 Community Place, Suite 3301 Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2027
Aafes
Viernheim,Europe,
U.S.A.
For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission
#4Consumer Comment
Fri, May 05, 2006
Sorry, I noticed you were in Delaware and missed that the attorney is in Maryland. For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission (part of the courts, not the Bar Association) you can reach them by mail: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland People's Resource Center 100 Community Place, Suite 3301 Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2027
Aafes
Viernheim,Europe,
U.S.A.
For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission
#5Consumer Comment
Fri, May 05, 2006
Sorry, I noticed you were in Delaware and missed that the attorney is in Maryland. For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission (part of the courts, not the Bar Association) you can reach them by mail: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland People's Resource Center 100 Community Place, Suite 3301 Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2027
Aafes
Viernheim,Europe,
U.S.A.
For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission
#6Consumer Comment
Fri, May 05, 2006
Sorry, I noticed you were in Delaware and missed that the attorney is in Maryland. For Maryland contact the Attorney Greivance Commission (part of the courts, not the Bar Association) you can reach them by mail: Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland People's Resource Center 100 Community Place, Suite 3301 Crownsville, Maryland 21032-2027
Gabriel
Millsboro,Delaware,
U.S.A.
Aafes-Viernheim, Europe, USA Thanx you!
#7Author of original report
Fri, May 05, 2006
Thank you for your direction. I do have one quesiton, since this Lawyer is practicing in Maryland, and we live in Delaware, which Bar Assocation would I need to contact?
Aafes
Viernheim,Europe,
U.S.A.
You need to file a complaint
#8Consumer Comment
Fri, May 05, 2006
You need to file a complaint with: Delaware State Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics 301 North Market Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Most bar associations will investigate member attorneys for non compliance with professional ethics. In the case of the attorney not appearing at the first master hearing this constitutes a breach. He accepted a retainer for representation and did not represent you.
Gabriel
Millsboro,Delaware,
U.S.A.
more information
#9Author of original report
Thu, May 04, 2006
My husband and I are trying to succeed in the Legal process of Immigration since Feb. 2003. If only the case was true that When an illegal alien marries a US citizen and fathers US born children (3), they are automatically legal. Obviously, this is an incorrect statement. We have been suffering through this matter of Immigration now for over 3 years. Only to find, my husband placed in Deportation proceedings in 2005, after our petition I filed 3 years before was approved. This has left us in financial and emotional turmoil. What upsets me the most, is that now, this may never make a difference. We are pressed to seek counsel for my husband's defense. The hardest thing to believe is that my husband has never had any problems with the law. He was now forced to face an Immigration Judge to defend himself because I, a US born Citizen and children, filed a Petition for his legalization. He is a law biding individual that has been in the United States now for over 12 years. The reason I started the Petition process in the beginning is to unite after 12 years, my husband with his family in his home country and still have the ability to return with us here in the US. So with every attempt to succeed, we hire a local lawyer for defense. Not only did we have bad judgement regarding my petition filing, but with the lawyer we hired. I would like to tell our situation regarding a matter I feel my husband and I have been victims. I feel our counsel we hired is responsible for negligent misrepresentation. We hired this counsel to help my husband defend a case with the immigration court. Although we were reliant on his defense and representation, he did not handle my husband's case defense with adverse interest. We put our confidence and trust to this local lawyer, but we still received inadequate legal representation. We do have enough evidence and a statement from this lawyer regarding his "troubling understanding of what happened in the course of his representation". We are currently working with another immigration counsel to attempt to reopen our case in front of the immigration judge. This lawyer's only practice is in immigration defense and not in legal malpractice issues. This counsel, respectfully , can not give me any information to regain some of our damages lost from this matter. At this moment, we have dispersed over $7,000.00 in lawyers fees alone. This does not include other Immigration fees and wasted time from work to rebuild the status of our case before hiring this counsel and immigration fees. I have attempted three separate occasions in certified letter form to settle and regain "some" of our loss from this lawyer, he does not respond. This is a true reason why I feel that something in the system went wrong. We have tried every attempt to make correct decisions, we fail. If we do not fail at the Immigration petitions, we fail at our defense representation. At our last hearing, the lawyer stood in front of the immigration court relieved my husband was granted Voluntary Departure instead of deportation. What relief would this be to you, if either way, your spouse would have to return to their born country after 12 years. This is why I feel the system leaves no other choice for people's reactions. Can someone recommend how we regain some of our loss and damages that this counsel has caused our family? I have attempted to search some legal advice regarding our loss, it seems as though there is no lawyer interested in suing another lawyer. We have been left in a debt of $10,000.00 for this situation, and we still have not seen the light at the end of the tunnel. We are financially torn and question is, in all we have been through, is it really important now that the travels of immigration may be unnecessary? Could all of this financial and stressful turmoil our family has experienced been for nothing? Sincerely, A family that is sick of the System/Scams
