Back in May, I attended an “Immigration Fraud Roundtable” event hosted by NYC Councilwoman Vanessa Gibson and NYS Attorney General Eric Schneiderman (in collaboration with other state elected officials from the Bronx, NY).
The event was a discussion on “how to protect your community from Immigration Services Fraud and the Unauthorized Practice of Law.” It was designed to inform the community members of the recourse available to them if they should be (or know someone who is) the victims of immigration fraud. It seems that many people have been victimized through unlicensed legal services, and by people falsely claiming to be in official positions to effect change in their immigration statuses.
It was intimated that the Trump campaign may have given encouragement to entities that capitalize on the fear of vulnerable residents, as complaints of immigration fraud have vastly risen.
So while it was an extremely necessary and commendable event, I couldn’t help but wonder; What about those who are in fact native born citizens and are victimized by people who are authorized to practice law? What recourse is available to them?
When I posed this question to both the NYS Assistant Attorney General and the Manhattan, NY District Attorney’s office, I was informed by their representatives that short of going to court with the former attorney, the only thing that a victimized consumer of authorized legal services may do is lodge a complaint with the applicable attorney grievance committee. Really? The grievance committee and not the law enforcement professionals? No bueno!
Well here is where this gets even more unfortunate for the victims of authorized legal services. A Deputy Chief at an attorney grievance committee informed me that the consumers of legal services do not have a “right” to redress by the grievance committees, as the grievance committees do not have a fiduciary duty to address complaints for consumers of legal services.
Notably, my most recent research on dissatisfied consumers of legal services shows that the grievance committee First Department (which oversees complaints against Bronx and Manhattan attorneys) alone receives 3300 complaints per year, and that 98.2% of the complaints by consumers are dismissed. Further and importantly, notable consumer research shows that the actual number of complaints by dissatisfied/aggrieved consumers is 10 times less than the actual number of dissatisfied/aggrieved consumers. The consumer research denotes that only 10% of aggrieved consumers actually submit complaints. This means that in the confines of the First Department exclusively, there very well may be 33,000 dissatisfied, aggrieved, and/or victimized consumers of legal services each year.
So is being victimized by the authorized practice of law really even a “thing?” Well let’s see how that might be made possible based on the public court records of ONE law firm in Manhattan, NY.
Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. Law Firm
According to public court records, the law firm of Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. (“Bailey”) has been in past and current litigation with many of its own former clients, either as a Plaintiff or as a Defendant.
It appears that the clients were not particularly wealthy and hired the Bailey law firm mainly for co-op or condo disputes. Some clients were tenants/shareholders, and others were landlords. During or after the attorney-client relationship with Bailey, the clients ended up in litigation with Bailey.
In many of the cases between Bailey and the former clients, the clients were/are represented by other licensed NYS attorneys. The licensed NYS attorneys themselves state in court documents that Bailey billed the clients “fraudulently” and “excessively,” “did not do actual work” for which the firm billed the clients, “engaged in deceptive, excessive and fraudulent billing practices” and provided incompetent legal service.
20 Examples exclusively from the Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. Law Firm:
1) From January 2012 to October 2014, Adam Leitman Bailey and his law firm represented landlord Christopher Rolf . Bailey billed him $1,050,312,17 (One Million, Fifty Thousand, Three Hundred Twelve Dollars, and Seventeen Cents). Bailey is currently suing Rolf in the Manhattan Supreme Court for the unpaid bills. Case #158445/2015. In Rolf’s counterclaims, his new respected attorney who is licensed with the NYS and American Bar Associations, stated:
“Bailey engaged in deceptive, excessive and fraudulent billing practices including charging too much per item of work performed and over staffing matters.”
“Bailey’s bills are inaccurate and/or fraudulent, as they do not reflect actual charges incurred.”
“Bailey failed to exercise the ordinary skill and knowledge commonly possessed by a member of the legal profession.”
Bailey “lacked such knowledge with regard to the matters it undertook’
Bailey “failed to perform work in a skillful manner”
Bailey’s legal representation “deviated from good and accepted standards in the industry”
Bailey charged over one million dollars in fees and “Bailey had no command of the relevant facts and no coherent, competent strategy as was needed to protect the interests of its clients. Instead, each matter was shunted from one attorney to another at the Bailey firm. Ultimately nothing of benefit was accomplished” for the client.
The attorney further stated: “In one notable example of Bailey’s improper and fraudulent billing practices, Bailey falsely claimed on or about April 2, 2013 to have paid $15,000 for an expert, when in fact Bailey had paid thousands less.
“Bailey improperly charged and exercised self-help in taking many thousands of dollars for ‘general’ and ‘financial’ and other matters not covered by any retainer agreement.”
2) In the pending matter of Adam Leitman Bailey vs Crest Condominium, NYS Supreme Court case# 654155/2012, the attorney for Crest Condominium notes that:
“Bailey inflated legal fees charges and billed the condominium $137, 555.75 for just three simple services: drafting a complaint, opposing a motion, and an OTSC.”
They are countersuing Bailey and accusing him of fraud and over-billing. The attorney in this matter also notes that during a conversation with Bailey, Bailey informed him that Bailey’s staff attorneys make commission of 40% of their client billing hours as their salaries. In the pending matter of Crest Condominium Bailey allowed 13 lawyers and 3 paraprofessionals to bill Crest Condominium.
3) In Adam Leitman Bailey -vs- Ahmad Alavian & Lance Lucarelli & The L Group Supreme Court case#159863/2014, Bailey sued his former clients for $257, 925.04 for unpaid fee bills. Bailey’s entire bill to the clients was $587,649.48. The clients state to the Court that Bailey over-billed them as he billed excessively and unreasonably. They accuse Bailey of:
“Unclean Hands,” “Unjust enrichment,” and “Statute of frauds” and state that Bailey’s “Fee charges were unnecessary excessive and unreasonable.”
4) In Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.-vs-Joseph Lombardi d/b/a Joseph Pell Lombardi & Associates, Architects, Supreme Court #114975/08, Bailey sued a client for $262,937.74 for legal fees. The client entered counterclaims against Bailey claiming unfair billing practices. The client also moved the court to include claims against Bailey for:
“breach of fiduciary duty,” “legal malpractice,” “rescission,” and “unjust enrichment.”
5) In Norman Baker and Janet Greenberg Baker- vs- Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C. Supreme Court #112862/2011, Bailey was sued by the couple for the return of their paid fees, and the couple claimed that Bailey
“did not protect our legal interests while retained by us.”
6) In Adam Leitman Bailey, P.C.-vs- Tal Priel Supreme Court # 601576/2005, Bailey sued a client for $29,710.96 for unpaid invoices. Bailey attempted to obtain a summary judgement and was denied. The court noted:
“A retainer agreement at issue does not consist of an unconditional promise to pay a sum certain because it merely establishes a rate by which plaintiff would charge defendant. Nor do the invoices submitted constitute prima facie proof of entitlement to payment under CPLR 3213 because the invoices are not signed by the defendant and therefore are not an agreement by the defendant to pay. Further, because the retainer and the invoices seek payment for legal services, plaintiff must submit proof de hors the agreement that it actually performed the work for which payment is sought (see Stanley Proner, P.C. v Julien & Schlesinger, P.C.. 134 AD2d 182, 184-85 [1st Dept. 1987])
7) In Adam Leitman Bailey vs Russell Pollack, Supreme Court #654256/2015, Bailey was the attorney for the client for 7 months and billed the client $110,461.36. Bailey now sues client for the unpaid bill. The client hired a respected licensed NYS attorney who stated that the client should not have to pay the bill from Bailey because:
Bailey “performed ineffective, ill-advised, and unauthorized work.”
Bailey “failed to timely advise [client] of various settlement demands and requests” and instead, Bailey “responded with palpably unreasonable demands without even consulting with [the client],” causing extreme difficulty for client, and exacerbating the initial matter with the client’s neighbor.
Bailey’s fees are “the result of [Bailey’s] bad faith, willful misconduct, negligence, and/or abuse.”
“Breach of fiduciary duty”
Bailey was “Unjustly enriched”
Bailey “overcharged for the work performed.”
Bailey “charged for work he never performed”
Bailey provided “deficient” legal services
Bailey “performed unnecessary legal and other work”
The client’s new attorney accused Bailey of misconduct and referred to the “cannons” of the legal profession.
Even Judges Have Weighed In!
8) In a 2014 NYS Supreme Court matter (case #104571/2011), Judge Arthur Engoron of the NYS Supreme Court found a fee bill by Adam Leitman Bailey to be excessive. As such, Judge Engoron knocked down the fee from $114,000 to $60,000, and noted misleading advertising of the Adam Leitman Bailey law firm as the reason. In his NYS Supreme Court decision, Judge Engoron stated:
”If you hire the firm that ‘Gets Results,’ you expect hard-nosed attorneys with a practical approach, not gold-plated preparation for a trial that should not have been that complicated, never was imminent, and never occurred.”
”A case that had been extensively litigated for years by another firm, and that was essentially ready for trial when inherited, and that settled without a trial, should not cost a king’s ransom,”
“Furthermore, the factual and legal issues were not that complicated: the building had ear-witnesses to the barking, and the by-laws allowed the building to impose fees.”
9) During Supreme Court case: #108370/2010 Statesboro Capital v. 802 Avenue U Development, Judge Charles Ramos of the NYS Supreme Court reported the Adam Leitman Bailey P.C. law firm to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. It is unclear why.
10) During Supreme Court case #103187/2012, Bailey is currently suing a former client for defamation for an online consumer review on Rip Off Report. Bailey claims that the consumer review is false, and the client states that the review is absolutely true. Client is countersuing Bailey for fraud and other claims. The former presiding judge, Judge Richard Braun, recused himself, on the record, stating that Bailey began improperly sending him ex parte brochures boasting of Bailey’s and his law firm’s accomplishments. Judge Braun stated that Bailey’s ex parte communication was especially improper considering the nature of the case pending before him, and that such information should “not be in the judges head.” The client stated on the record that Bailey was retaliating against client for a complaint that was submitted by client to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. Bailey’s attorney stated (in July 2014) on the record, that the disciplinary complaint against Bailey was in “subjudice” (means under judicial consideration). Bailey told client that if she states her complaint to the disciplinary committee was false, he would drop his defamation lawsuit. Client refused and is pursuing her counterclaims against Bailey.
11) In the Case of 524 East 14th Street LLC vs Lee L& T index 104482/02, Judge Timmie Elsner knocked down Bailey’s excessive and improper legal fees from $132,000 to $69,000. Bailey appealed, and it was lowered $5,000 further by the appeals court.
12) In a previous Housing Court co-op matter where the client who hired Bailey never even had a signed proprietary lease, Bailey failed to inform the court that the client did not have a signed lease, and instead, allowed six (6) different attorneys from his law firm to bill the client. The client tried to dispute the bills and issues directly with Bailey, but to no avail. Bailey then quit the matter and left the client after four (4) months.
The client later ultimately won the legal matter without Bailey, but was informed by Judge Timme Elsner of the NYS Courts that the case should have been immediately dismissed because there was no lease.
Judge Timme Elsner informed the client that Bailey “did not do anything” for the client, that Bailey’s fees “are insane” and that the client “wasted your money” on Bailey. Judge Timme Elsner refused to award the client any money paid to Bailey, stating that although it was not the client’s fault that Bailey wasted her money, the client cannot get money back that was wasted on Bailey.
13) There are also cases in the public record of the court, where Bailey sued the clients but the clients did not show up to confront their own attorney in the court, so Bailey won default judgements against his former clients.
Other Consumers Weigh In Online!
14) An online Yelp review dated 1-31-2014 states:
“Unfortunately, I had a terrible experience with Mr. Bailey. I was recommended to him to get advice on trying to break my apartment lease. The rate was $350 for an hour-long consultation. Of course I had to pay up front. Then I waited 30 minutes. Finally, a DIFFERENT lawyer showed up and was like, “What do you need?” I asked him where Mr. Bailey was and he said, “In a meeting. He can’t come.” I explained that I had an appointment with him and paid his fee. Finally I relented and the guy listened to my issue and just read me what my lease states (I already knew), offering no advice. So I insisted on seeing Mr. Bailey. He finally came in and asked what I wanted and sent the other lawyer away. I explained my situation and he basically said he couldn’t help me, that I couldn’t break my lease and even said that he had written the lease, bringing me around the office to show off some framed leases on the wall. As I packed up to leave, he gave me a free copy of his book. I said, “I don’t want your book. What is it anyway?”
“He said it was a book about “buying a house, in case you ever do.” I replied, “I just bought a house.” Suddenly he perked up, realizing that maybe I had more than a few dollars in the bank. Started prodding me with questions about what i do. “Are you rich?” etc etc. Walked out $350 poorer actually.”
15) On 8-6-13 Another Yelp reviewer states:
“worse law firm in all of NYC.. i am a landlord in NYC that was referred to Adam Leitman Bailey PC over 2 years ago. this law firm has hired the most incompetent team of lawyers. i handed very simple cases to them, and every case was file INCORRECTLY with the courts EVERY time. waste of time, waste of money. they bill excessively just to pay for advertising for the firm and get no results. don’t bother with this firm. spend your money elsewhere!!!!!
Was this review …?”
16) On 1-16-09 A Lawyer Ratingz reviewer states:
“my experience with this man and firm was HORRIBLE. he did not behave in a professional manner and he let an inept member of his firm keep my money to practice because they did not know what they were doing. this lawyer adam bailey was not honest with me about anything and then after he realized that i was on to him with his incompetence, he quit and kept all of my money and my documents. i am hopeful that he gets disbarred and will not be able to do that to anyone else ever. his advertising is absolutely not true. i definitely DO NOT RECOMMEND this firm. I used this firm and was very sorry and my case was so simple and easy.”
17) On 7-5-10 A Lawyer Ratingz reviewer notes:
“Agree with the other person who rated him. Horrible – do not use this attorney.”
18) On a Wall Street Journal website titled: Associate Perk of the Week: “Persuasive”Ties and Brooks Brothers Suits, At 3:23 pm on February 24, 2012 NYC Maritime Attorney wrote about Bailey:
“It speaks volumes (and not in a good way) that this law firm cannot recruit young attorneys who are smart about the law, have enough sense of professionalism to know the appropriate way to dress for their employment and have enough maturity or gumption to obtain the right wardrobe before starting to work at the firm.”
19) At 7:58 pm on February 27, 2012 Anonymous wrote:
“Pathetic…while I agree that many people these days lack competence to dress appropriately, I am still surprised that he hired someone who would need to be shown these things. I would say that this is ONLY an example of a certain firm trying to give off a misleadingly wealthy image…”
20) On August 8 2015, a reviewer named The Shores at Atlantic Beach stated:
“This firm is a joke!! I hired them to represent me on a landlord tenant matter and all they did was take my money!! They did such half-a* work it was ridiculous!! Then they had the audacity to bill me attorney rates for work done by non-attorneys! When I asked them to fix the matter they refused! Adam Bailey insisted the person was an attorney but they didn’t pass the bar at that time!! What a joke!! From the receptionist with the fake British accents to their firm name which is really one guy who uses his middle name to make him seem his firm is bigger than what it is, Adam Leitman Bailey is a fraud. Don’t get ripped off!!”
Positive Online Reviews for Bailey May Not Be Voluntary or From Actual Clients:
After Bailey received negative reviews on the “lawyerratingz.com” website, there was an attempt to remove one of them (the review of 1-16-09). The attempt to remove the negative review was unsuccessful, and “lawyerratingz.com” approved the consumer’s negative review.
Later, in 2011, after Bailey received another negative consumer review on the site, there was an attempt to post several fraudulent positive reviews, but the attempt was sanctioned by lawyerratingz.com” and the fraudulent reviews were removed (“SYSTEM: 3 positive duplicate or disallowed ratings automatically removed”).
Later, in 2013, Bailey received another negative consumer review on the site, then out of nowhere (around the same time and some on the same exact day, 6-6-13), positive reviews were posted. Some of the reviews were sanctioned and removed by “lawyerratingz.com” due to the fraudulent nature of their submission (trying to post positive reviews from the same IP address or user/ “SYSTEM: 2 positive duplicate or disallowed ratings automatically removed”). This suggests that positive online reviews for Bailey may not be voluntary or from actual clients.
http://www.lawyerratingz.com/reviews/818994/Attorney-Adam-Leitman-Bailey.html
In summary:
In summary, yes, we certainly need to protect our vulnerable foreign born residents from immigration fraud and victimization from the “unauthorized” practice of law, but let’s not forget about our native born citizens who may need protection from the “authorized” practice of law.
Let’s also always be reminded about what happens when the grievance committees and/or authorities fail to take action on the valid complaints that they receive from constituents regarding the bad acts of licensed legal professionals. (Emmanuel Roy-grievance complaint submitted 1-2006/dismissed 9-2009. Arrested by the FBI 10-2009.) Sentence- 7 years in federal prison.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-corruption-fbi-idUSTRE5B74AI20091208
http://miami.cbslocal.com/2014/02/26/man-ripped-off-by-2-unqualified-attorneys-moves-into-lawyers-home/
https://www.rt.com/usa/florida-attorneys-coulton-home-269/
Sincerely,
Caprice