Some Attorneys at Dinkes & Schwitzer New York Law Firm Still Run Amok Allegedly Despite “Former” Colleague William Hamel on Trial Charged with Criminal Felony
July 19, 2011 § 7 Comments
From the top down, unsavory goings on.-From withholding a client’s settlement money by among other things, deliberately delaying the settlement to retaliating against clients and more……. Let us count the lawyers.
1-William R. Hamel
Dinkes & Schwitzer supervising attorney William R. Hamel was arrested September 23, 2009 for Criminal Felony, and is currently a defendant in a criminal trial, still ongoing, in Bronx Supreme Court, for 19 counts of alleged bribery. According to the actual Felony Complaint, in his case # 04794-2009, the charges against, defendant Hamel, are based on incriminating “telephone records of the defendant and others; observations made and photographs taken of a meeting between the Defendant and Gladys Diaz (“Diaz”) on March 14, 2007, in the vicinity of 597-99 Grand Concourse, Bronx, New York; and the statements of the defendant and Gladys Diaz, overheard during court-ordered eavesdropping.”
This is not only part of public record easily accessible in court, and via court records on the internet, i.e., www.courts.state.ny.us but has been in the news, newspapers, and written about in such law “trade news outlets” as http://www.Law.com, (September 24, 2009), so that much of the public, the legal community, not to mention Dinkes & Schwitzer, the firm he is affiliated with knows about this. We mention his affiliation in present tense as he has been seen in the Dinkes & Schwitzer office, and he has worked with at least one, (1) client since his arrest.
Given the above, you would think that some of the lawyers of Dinkes & Schwitzer would make an effort to rise above their colleague’s alleged criminal activities and act with integrity.——-Alas, no such thing.
Among the cases, (literally), in point: One client is, as mentioned above having her case purposefully delayed- (not allowed per the Bar Association’s Client’s Rights document posted on their site). Joelle Jensen, the litigating attorney in this case presented her client with settlement papers containing in the list of defendants, a person who is currently not a party, to the case. And in fact hadn’t been a participant in any form for years. When Jensen’s client, the Plaintiff, told her this and requested the uninvolved person be removed from the caption, in communications with the client, Jensen told her that “In order to end the action all the parties need to be on the release”.
In response, the client rightfully requested Jensen to present her with the legal statute confirming Jensen’s claim (of inclusion), at which point the client would happily sign the settlement documents.
Of course the client was not shown any such statute baring any likeness to Jensen’s outlandish claim as it is non-existent-like this defendant. Jensen did however, tell her client that the latter didn’t like this former who happened to be a relative.-We at CC are still trying to figure out the relevance to Jensen’s assertion. In fact we find it absolutely absurd and only makes her seem like a saboteur to her client as opposed to an advocate.
Time has passed with the settlement for a case that took amazingly 8 years to come to fruition, and the settlement money, as is the settlement itself in limbo with the client a disabled Medicare recipient on a fixed income to boot.
But we can’t stop there lest the rampant misconduct at this law firm not be exposed. Prior to the settlement papers being formed, Jensen and Hamel bade the client to meet with them after business hours having her sign a document.
Word of Hamel’s criminal trial was spreading. The client got wind of this and sent a mail certified restricted delivery return receipt letter to William Schwitzer, (the head attorney and the “Schwitzer” of the law firm’s title, “Dinkes & Schwitzer”) which when tracked was indeed received and delivered to Schwitzer.-But was the receipt for such, never returned.
In that letter, the client told of the situation, that fact that her case is being intentionally held up, that the caption includes a person as a defendant that shouldn’t be there, and that she wants it removed, and the case finished including very generously again that he can produce a legal statute confirming the aforementioned is routine procedure then she would sign the papers as is. She also asked for information regarding Medicare with whom Jensen is charge of being in touch on her behalf as the latter is the litigating lawyer on the case.
Additionally, she made specific mention in her letter of that very strange meeting after 5:00PM with Jensen and Hamel, saying she knew of the criminal charges filed against him and emphatically asked if during this time Hamel was allowed to practice.
The client never got a response to any questions that, any client is not only deserving of, but entitled to. William Schwitzer, declined to send back the return receipt from the Mail Certified Restricted Delivery Return Receipt letter their client sent him. Schwitzer, the head of the firm of Dinkes & Schwitzer, would not tell his own client if his own supervising attorney, with whom that client had spoken to and met on numerous occasions since his arrest was allowed to practice. She doesn’t know to this day.
We might add that Dinkes & Schwitzer’s website for the longest time included a photo of a group of seven, (7), people, including Hamel on the far right. Soon after the receipt of the above-mentioned letter, coincidentally, he was eliminated, (air-brushed out), from the picture leaving, last time we checked, six, (6).
Apparently Dinkes & Schwitzer thinks they are possibly above the law. It is obvious they think they are beyond the parameters of legal ethics. Jensen is inappropriately in full retaliation mode as she is not doing her client’s bidding, (how dare a client tell a lawyer what to do!), tell her client if she has heard from and is negotiating with the insurance carrier working in the best interest of the client. In short, moving the case forward, properly. We say the same for Dinkes & Schwitzer as they have refused to answer their own client’s questions and work on behalf of their own client’s good.
As if this is not bad enough Dinkes & Schwitzer has, as a firm, been the defendant in their own lawsuits.
Dinkes & Schwitzer, Hamel, Jensen, and William Schwitzer, himself may attempt to rebut what we have written and we will be glad to publish it. However, they will have to provide proof along with any rebuttal. But to be fair, we will report if they try to redeem themselves.
Readers, this is only the first of a series of articles about the, to say the least, unsavory Dinkes & Schwitzer law firm and their attorneys. We’ve mentioned just 3 of them. We are taking it upon ourselves to stay on top of this, to give an up to the minute report of any more retaliation against their clients the moment it happens, by Hamel, Jensen, and Schwitzer, etc. We will not allow these lawyers to continue their lawlessness as we are holding them responsible. Let’s see if they try to redeem themselves. Stay tuned.
A P.S./caveat to our readers: This firm has also received horrendous reviews on review sites. Since we have the ability today, to check out professionals’ reviews we must for our own protection. So when people take the time to write a review, good or bad, there must be validity for the reason they do so. Don’t be swayed by educational background since , a degree does not a good professional make–Hamel, Jensen, and Schwitzer are perfect examples of that.