Dinkes & Schwitzer, Malpractice Mavens: Clients Sue Them For Malpractice More Than Once
January 5, 2013 § 5 Comments
Another installment regarding Dinkes & Schwitzer at 112 Madison Ave #10, New York
(212) 685-7800 who make litigation very expensive for the rest of us and have, as due to their activities they’ve forced us to be litigious, i.e., sue them!
Let’s see, William Hamel , of Dinkes & Schwitzer indicted for Bribery in Bronx Supreme Court -Criminal Term, and lo and behold, his firm, Dinkes & Schwitzer has been sued for Malpractice, (Index # TS-300267-09/NY) as well!–Live and learn.- (We have posted the link below. But it can also be accessed/googled via NY Unified Court System Local Civil Court in New York County and by using the Index # # TS-300267-09/NY).
Our sources in the court tell us that this specific case was just settled, as of the end of 2011 which means that Dinkes & Schwitzer was compelled to pay the Plaintiff for damages.–The Malpractice attorneys, –and this goes for any attorneys, would not have taken the case unless they thought they could collect monetarily for damages.
With just a little journalistic investigation, and we mean just a little, we found that this is not the only case filed against Dinkes & Schwitzer by a former client. It can also be accessed via link: http: //iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivilLocal/LCSearch.
Obviously, it would seem Dinkes & Schwitzer didn’t want it to go to a jury. Maybe they were afraid of the bad publicity! –But not to worry, our Readership has does and will continue to accommodate them by posting the bad publicity on this and other blogs.–(The blogs exposing Dinkes & Schwitzer for what they are are mounting!).
We’ve got news for them their Malpractice cases are on public record for the public at large to access if and when they please. And it is our job as journalists to make sure that consumers know, hopefully before, and if we can’t catch them beforehand, than at least during any of the unfortunate contact with Dinkes & Schwitzer that they may have. This is not the Dinkes & Schwitzer legal system. –We’d all have even more to fear than Dinkes & Schwitzer practicing and harming the public than that.
To be sure, it is stressful enough for someone to be a Plaintiff. People don’t relish filing yet another lawsuit, because their original lawyers acted underhandedly and/or were incompetent.
Beyond that, we won’t take up our time to wonder why this isn’t the only case where they had to defend themselves against Malpractice from former clients who felt Dinkes & Schwitzer worked strictly in Dinkes & Schwitzer’s own best interest thereby working against rather that working for their clients.
If Dinkes & Schwitzer desires, we’ll be very happy to publish the particulars of this specific case.–We’ll give them time to think about that.
So here it is: Dinkes & Schwitzer, The Malpractice Mavens: The law firm that must constantly defend themselves against one of many deserved Malpractice Suits:
WebCivil Local – Case Detail
|Court:||New York County Civil Court|
|Case Name:||SHUGOL, YULIY vs. SCHWITZER, WILLIAM DINKES & SCHWITZER, DINKES & SCHWITZER, P.C. EFRON, JILL, AKA JILL ANN DINKES as Executor of the Estate of WILLIAM DINKES GELB & BLACK, P.C., GELB & BLACK GELB, JAMES BLACK, ANDREW|
|Case Type:||Supreme Court Transfer|
Yes Ladies and Gentleman, the above was a Malpractice case that was filed against Dinkes & Schwitzer. –We know Dinkes & Schwitzer are really quite angry that we have posted it. But that’s really too bad as this is part of public record and Dinkes & Schwitzer shouldn’t have caused their own client to file a Malpractice case against them.
Bravo to this client for speaking up and for not letting Dinkes & Schwitzer get away with it. And we’ve a feeling, given what our audience and contributors have been and continue to tell us, Dinkes & Schwitzer’s Malpractice insurance premiums have long been increasing. Dinkes & Schwtizer need we repeat: hiring a PR company ot boost your rating s won’t help you.
By the by, dear Readers, this is not the only Malpractice case that was filed against Dinkes & Schwitzer…..
But then this is not our only installment on the matter…………