The Dinkes & Schwitzer Three: Hamel, Jensen, Schwitzer: Brazenly Violating Client’s Rights, Flouting Attorney Repsonsibility, as Hamel is Defendant in Ongoing Criminal Case for Alleged Bribery

August 1, 2011 § 5 Comments

Dear Readers,

As promised, we are keeping you abreast on the above-mentioned law firm on what seems to be their road to ruin as they have already lost standing in the community. Dinkes & Schwitzer attorneys, William R. Hamel,  Joelle Jensen, , and William Schwitzer, (the Schwitzer in the name of the firm), or better known now as: The Dinkes & Schwitzer Three – continue to deliberately delay a client’s case at hand.  Attorneys are not allowed to do this. For doing so is in direct violation of Client’s Rights not to mention, Attorney Responsibility. In an excerpt from, The New York Bar Association addressing the (client) community, in their Client’s Right’s PDF quote entry 6: “You are entitled to be kept informed as to the status of your matter and to request and receive copies of papers. You are entitled to sufficient information to allow you to participate meaningfully in the development of your matter.” We say in our headline “deliberately” as the client specifically asked Schwitzer in June 2011 and Jensen on Monday 7/25/11 for information about the client’s own case. Jensen was asked to send the information by 7/29/11-Obviously plenty of time to comply. Not Hamel, Jensen, nor Schwitzer, sent the client the information. This flies in the face of the confines of the Law profession. Furthermore, to quote Canon 7 of the New York Lawyer’s Code of Professional Conduct: EC 7-1 The duty of a lawyer, both to the client and to the legal system, is to represent the client zealously within the bounds of the law, which includes Disciplinary Rules and enforceable professional regulations. Therefore, unless a client asks his lawyers to something on the case that is illegal, the lawyer is legally bound to follow the instructions or come up with a legal statute/reasonable facsimile/or an extremely good logical explanation to back why he/she is not doing so. Let us add the client also add of course the 1st of the three, Hamel knows of this situation as well as Jensen has said that she would give the forward the emails requesting  the information to the supervisors. Given that, all who should know, (which are the Dinkes & Schwitzer Three, i.e., Hamel, Jensen, and Schwitzer), and  should be taking responsibility are aware. Then case information is being withheld from the client –with malice aforethought. Each Attorney in such an instance is hold accountable thus can’t claim mea culpa, for his/her own actions. So any claims, of innocence would not work here as they are all the opportunity to “come clean” but declined by simply not doing so. Even in the world of civilians ignorance of the law is no excuse. But here these attorneys are quite aware of the parameters of their occupation, since the client asked them several times. Now, if Hamel, Jensen and Schwitzer don’t know the law as well as the boundaries of their profession, then they are again violating their code of ethics, as incompetent representation is also taboo among the tenets of their field. It looks to be that no matter how you look at it, they shouldn’t be practicing because they can’t follow the dogma and the disciplinary procedures of their avocation.-Bottom line-They just can’t control themselves. Apparently these guys think that they and their reputations are Teflon-coated and can withstand their reprehensible behavior made public. Need we go by the wisdom of Shakespeare by quoting, “The evil lives after them”. Thus, Dear Readers for lawyers to deliberately disobey instructions put forth by the client, and in this instance quite simple instructions, then the lawyers are involved in hanky panky-to say the least and they and their licenses should be up for review, rebuke, and perhps revocation.-Given their contempt of and for convention and disdain for doing what’s right, we can confidently say,  They’re on their way. Among our readers, this law firm is has been newly titled: Dinkies & Shysters- We like it and think it’s well deserved. Oh, Hamel’s next Criminal Court date is August 23, 2011 in Bronx Criminal Court. We’ll tell you all more about that desperate “ambulance chasing” Hamel. Our colleagues at “The Daily News” gave him that befitting name. According to New York’s Lawyer’s Code of Professional Conduct, a lawyer is not supposed to even have a hint of impropriety.  Given he’s on trial for alleged Bribery which can earn him jail time, how kind they were. We will keep you updated as it is obvious that these guys, The Dinkes & Schwitzer Three, Hamel, Jensen, and Schwitzer, think they are “entitled” to mock rules and regulations if not possibly laws—and get off scot free.


§ 5 Responses to The Dinkes & Schwitzer Three: Hamel, Jensen, Schwitzer: Brazenly Violating Client’s Rights, Flouting Attorney Repsonsibility, as Hamel is Defendant in Ongoing Criminal Case for Alleged Bribery

  • John Doe says:

    I interviewed with Mr. Hamel in January of this year to become the head of their litigation department. He is still most definitely working for Dinkes and Schwitzer.


    • Publisher says:

      We do no advertising. And yet more and more undeserving, innocent, trusting, people who have been made victims, have come to the fore to find us and tell us the same types of stories involving these attorneys. The only thing that’s different are the names of the victims. If you NY Unified Court System e-courts site and do a little navigating within, you will find they are and have been defendants in Malpractice cases.

      Quite frankly, people are fed up with the shenanigans of Hamel, Dinkes & Schwitzer, and The Dinkes & Schwitzer 3 as expressed by our readership and contacts. People are not standing still for this. Given the public outcry against common white collar criminals such as alledgely Hamel, Dinkes & Schwitzer, and the Dinkes & Schwitzer 3, are not going to be able to depend on the protection of the brethren for long.


    • Publisher says:

      We do not doubt he is working for them. However, whereas he used to be flashily pictured in their firm’s website, when last we looked he has since been conveniently and coincidentally –(that is since we have brought their alleged high jinks–oh we write so euphemistically–have been brought to the foreground of the public’s attention via this site), removed apparently so as not to stigmatize the firm to prospective clients. We have some unfortunate news for them: it probably will be of no help. The public which includes clients are quite savvy today and will look at such websites as this one and others such as yelp where Dinkes & Schwitzer are given “no stars”– if not less.

      The days that Hamel, Dinkes & Schwitzer, The Dinkes & Schwitzer Three,i.e., William Hamel, William Schwitzer, Joelle Jensen, were able to get away their alleged atrocities are long gone.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading The Dinkes & Schwitzer Three: Hamel, Jensen, Schwitzer: Brazenly Violating Client’s Rights, Flouting Attorney Repsonsibility, as Hamel is Defendant in Ongoing Criminal Case for Alleged Bribery at


%d bloggers like this: