Sharon
beverly hills,#2Author of original report
Fri, May 16, 2008
Law.com HomeNewswireLawJobsCLE CenterLawCatalogOur SitesAdvertise Search Top Stories: Register for Legal Newswire | Legal Blogs | Newsletters | Feeds Top Stories From Law.com Legal Technology Videoconferencing Brings the World Closer In-House Counsel The Biotech Work Force: Unique Employment Law Issues Small Firm Business As Time Passes, Hope Dwindles for Missing Ga. Lawyer As Judge Retires, He Rules for Firm That's Hiring Him Charles Toutant New Jersey Law Journal February 28, 2006 Printer-friendly Email this Article Reprints & Permissions A retiring Bergen County, N.J., judge turned heads this month by issuing a ruling in a case in which the plaintiffs counsel is the firm he planned to join. Neither Gerald Escala nor his new employer, Herten, Burstein, Sheridan, Cevasco, Bottinelli, Litt & Harz, will say when the job offer was made. But Escala announced on Feb. 3 that he would join the Hackensack, N.J., firm -- just two days after signing a judgment in a case in which partner Thomas Herten was the plaintiffs lawyer. Escala, 70, who retired last Friday after 15 years on the bench, denies there was a conflict of interest, despite Rule of Professional Conduct 1.12(c)'s edict that a lawyer "shall not negotiate for employment with any person who is involved as a party or as an attorney for a party in a matter in which the lawyer is participating personally and substantially as a judge or other adjudicative officer, arbitrator, mediator or other third-party neutral." But the issue will likely pop up again, as the defendant is appealing Escala's ruling. In the meantime, Assignment Judge Sybil Moses last Wednesday ordered that any post-judgment motions in the case, DeNike v. Cupo, BER-C-194-03, be heard in Passaic County. Moses said moving the case to another county was "the better practice in light of rumors propagated by the press." Herten says he will defend his firm's actions in court if called to do so. "Our firm's very recent offer to Judge Escala was made with the highest degree of ethics and responsibility and also in keeping with the duties and responsibilities to all the clients we represent in the Chancery Division of Bergen County," Herten says. Herten's adversary in the case, James Keegan of Bendit Weinstock in West Orange, N.J., declines to comment. In DeNike, Escala, as presiding General Equity Part judge, was asked to settle a dispute between the two founders of Classic Mortgage, a mortgage firm in Maywood, N.J., over the value of a departing partner's share. The major difficulty was that the partners -- Herten's client Lawrence DeNike and Keegan's client Michael Cupo -- had only informal arrangements in the early years of their business about whether their capital contributions would be counted as general overhead or credited as profits. In five days of trial in February and March 2005, each side presented expert testimony on valuation. Last April 7, Escala issued preliminary findings and adjourned the case, expressing hope the parties would settle. When they didn't, he appointed his own valuation expert. Last Dec. 28, based on that expert's findings, and after a supplemental hearing, he ruled that the share of departing partner Cupo had a net value of $436,682. On Jan. 20, due to a calculation error, Escala issued a supplemental decision acknowledging and granting Cupo an additional $57,000. That decision also gave Classic Mortgage five years to pay Cupo back and denied the defense motion to enter the obligation jointly against the company and DeNike. The Jan. 20 ruling also said interest, at the judgment rate, would run from Dec. 20, 2005. On Feb. 1, Escala signed a judgment memorializing those terms and annexing a promissory note between the parties. The judgment also included a handwritten note, with Escala's initials, saying the interest rate was set at the judgment rate, rather than the rate in the operating agreement between the two partners, in recognition of a $250,000 advance payment from DeNike to Cupo and of the fact that the matter was litigated. Two days later, at a dinner with his former law clerks, Escala announced his new job at Herten Burstein. Escala, while not saying when the job talks with the firm began, stresses that the Feb. 1 judgment only restates terms he set out in the Jan. 20 decision. Defendant Cupo is appealing the judgment, which awarded him sizably less of a payout than he thinks he is due. APPLYING THE RPCS The Code of Judicial Conduct does not specifically address protocol for judges' job hunts before retirement, but in the opinion of some ethics authorities, RPC 1.12(c) covers the situation. A judge who was negotiating with a law firm while sitting on one of the firm's cases "seems like a substantial grounds for appeal," says John Leubsdorf, who teaches professional responsibility at Rutgers Law School-Newark. In such a circumstance, the judge should recuse himself from his potential employer's cases. "If you're negotiating with a lawyer for a job, it looks as if you have some kind of interest in getting, first of all, the job, and secondly, as good terms as possible," Leubsdorf says. Another professional ethics authority says that while RPC 1.12(c) is clear on its face, Escala wouldn't have violated it if job negotiations took place after the Jan. 20 decision was signed, as long as the Feb. 1 judgment didn't modify the terms. "Is placing his signature to a judgment substantial involvement? I really think it's more of a formality," says Bennett Wasserman, who practices professional responsibility and liability law at Stryker, Tams & Dill in Newark. "There are no facts to say he violated the rule. A mere suggestion of closeness in time -- that's not enough even to raise it," says Wasserman, who also teaches a legal malpractice course at Hofstra University School of Law. "There's no conflict," Escala said in an interview on Thursday. "Different people have different views of things. It may be that somebody wants it to appear [to be] a conflict." While declining to discuss the sequence of events that led to his joining Herten, Burstein, Escala said it was "just the firm I decided to choose [as] a personal and professional choice." Given his popularity as a judge, Escala probably could have had his pick of firms. He ranked 10th out of 32 Bergen County judges in the New Jersey Law Journal's January 2005 survey asking practitioners to rate judges. Respondents gave him his highest marks for his lack of bias based on race, gender and ethnicity. The Bergen County Bar Association is feting Escala on March 7 with a dinner in Hackensack.
Sharon
beverly hills,#3Author of original report
Wed, August 29, 2007
Resolving botched legal issues is difficult and timely. Sometimes the time it takes extends past one's resources, and justice never prevails. Today, I have lost my home, have lost the rental car I was living out of , and , unless a miracle occurs, I will be a 62 year old disabled woman living on the streets with a 17 year old cat. The simplicity of it is; Warren Robins failed to serve discovery on a case he knew was likely to go to trial. At trial, he prevented evidence that would have helped my case from being presented to the court. Robins and Feingold allowed false testimony to be presented to the court. (These were no misjudgements. Robins and Feingold are an av rated, experienced litigator, who knows the court required standard of proof, and laws and rules governing professional conduct..) Robins' multiple failures to act in a timely manner, and failures to act at all, served to inflate his bill and caused considerable financial losses. Robins lied about and withheld crucial facts about the case which served to keep the litigation going, and increase his bill. All the above resulted in a shoddy court presentation and the loss of my case and assets. The loss of my case and assets threw me into indigence and my mortality is at risk. In his performance, Robins violated multiple violations of law and rules of ethical conduct. Judge Gerald C. Escala was surprisingly blinded to the numerous conflicts in testimony offered by Stan Siegel, and , surprisingly, took no judicial notice. This was one lawyer's assessments of Robins' actions: 1. Robbins did not protect the assets from your mother's estate so that you did not receive your full entitilement; 2. Robbins 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. Robbins needlessly ran up extensive legal fees based on advising you to continue a case that he was not likely to win. Today, I have lost my home, have lost the rental car I was living out of , and , unless a miracle occurs, I will b e a 62 year old disabled woman living on the streets with a 17 year old cat
Sharon
Beverly Hills,#4Author of original report
Sat, May 19, 2007
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-trial-costs/#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.