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
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.