Unethical conduct, scam

UPDATE ANTHONY RAYMOND 973 Circle Drive Arbutus, Maryland 21227 (4**) **7-0837 ______________________________________________________________________________ February 5, 2017 Dear Mr. Slavitt and Cowen, My attorneys have made a financial settlement and mutual release agreement with me. This covers some of my losses and expenses. In exchange I have removed all possible negative postings and reviews of their firm and individual lawyers. In addition, I have updated the reviews, marking them as “resolved.” If you wish to negotiate a similar settlement with me, I will offer you the same opportunity to help clear your reputation on the internet. After such settlement, my retraction shall state that you have resolved all issues between us to my complete satisfaction. This offer shall remain in effect for ten days, after such time I will be updating my reviews. Sincerely, Anthony Raymond Anthony Raymond 973 Circle Drive Baltimore, MD 21227 4**-**7-0837 traymond51@***.com Would you want this lawyer to represent you? I invite anyone to contact me for additional information. BEWARE OF SLAVITT AND COWEN Anybody considering retaining MARTIN COWEN should first read the following: I was looking for an honest attorney to represent me regarding consumer fraud. I was a victim of consumer fraud. The company/person refused to return my property to me, and they sued me for $7,500. I initially hired Martin Cowen, who took my retainer and did nothing. I found out from the court I was represented pro se. Not only did he not enter his appearance, but he did not give me a contract as required by state law. He refused to accompany me during deposition. I eventually had to seek other attorneys. My case was compromised, and I lost $187,000 in property and legal fees, not to mention expenses. Cowen was taken to a New Jersey Fee Arbitration hearing where he was found negligent and forced to return 80% of my fees. He is currently waiting for a hearing with the New Jersey Ethics Committee. Would you want to retain a lawyer who treats his clients this way? Anyone wanting more information can feel free to contact me. I invite anyone to contact me for additional information. Anthony Raymond, Jr. 973 Circle Drive Baltimore, MD 21227 (4**) **7-0837 Email: traymond51@***.com As follows are letters which have been directed to the New Jersey Courts: 973 Circle Drive Baltimore, MD 21227 4**-**7-0837 traymond51@***.com September 28, 2005 Supreme Court of New Jersey District Fee Arbitration Committee For Essex County 354 Eisenhower Parkway-Plaza II Livingston, NJ 07039 Dear Arbitration Committee: I am a resident of Baltimore County, Maryland. I have an ongoing legal problem with Robert Lifson, a.k.a. Robert Edwards Auctions regarding his damaging several baseball cards I consigned to him for his auction. He has not returned any of my property to me. The damages exceed $50,000. I originally filed suit in Baltimore County; however that suit was dismissed without prejudice due apparently to jurisdiction issues. One of my objectives in my lawsuit was the recovery of damages. Since the cards were damaged substantially, their return to me was not important. In fact, I believed a return without appropriate protection could be damaging to my case. After the dismissal of the Maryland lawsuit, Lifson sued me for storage charges for the cards he did not return. Since this case involves only 446 cards, his suit was frivolous. I needed a lawyer in New Jersey. On January 8, the Essex County Lawyers Referral Service referred me to Martin Cowen, 17 Academy Street, Newark, NJ 07102. When I spoke with Mr. Cowen, I said I was interested in damages, and not just in the recovery of my property. I explained to him how a return of the property was not adequate and was potentially damaging. Mr. Cowen agreed to answer Lifson’s suit for storage charges, and file a counterclaim seeking damages in excess of $50,000. Cowen agreed to perform all of the above for a $2,500 retainer to be applied against one-third of any recovery. Cowen never confirmed this agreement in writing despite repeated requests from me. On January 17, 2005 I sent Cowen the $2,500 retainer. Cowen sent me a draft answer and counterclaim February 14 (Exhibit 1) for my comments. I informed Cowen on February 16, 2005 (Letter attached as Exhibit 2) that the damages remained in excess of $50,000, not the $15,000 he indicated. On March 10, I called Cowen to express my concerns about the case, and his failure to communicate with me. Twice he hung up on me, and refused to discuss my case. On March 15, 2005 Cowen finally sent me a copy of the answer and counterclaim, without telling me what date it was filed. This Counterclaim only requested $15,000 in damages, despite my communicating several times that the damages were in excess of $50,000. I have since been informed that $15,000 is the jurisdictional limit of that court. Cowen did not propound any discovery. Additionally, he failed to respond to discovery requests from Lifson. On March 30, 2005 the Superior Court of New jersey informed me that I had not answered the original complaint, and was listed as a pro se defendant (Exhibit 3). As of this date, the court had no record of Cowen’s counterclaim. On March 31, 2005 I discharged Cowen. Shortly thereafter he sent me an invoice for $3648.75 to which he credited my $2,500 retainer (Exhibit 4). The invoice had no time listed next to each of the items and charged me $275 per hour for his time. As I indicated there was no written agreement. During the brief time Cowen represented me he insisted I take possession of the cards from Lifson. I told Cowen that I and/or an expert needed to inspect the cards. I did not want them back without some legal protection, particularly in view of the claim against me for storage charges. It also seemed to me if I were to have the cards for inspection, it was necessary to have some independent party attest to their condition if and when they were returned to me. It was not as simple as picking up the cards. Despite the need for legal representation, Cowen kept trying to get me to pick up the cards without any legal protection or representation. His suggestions included me going to Lifson’s house and/or picking them up at the Watchung Police Station. My overall experience with Cowen was dissatisfactory because, Cowen did not do what he said he would do. It began with his failure to send me a written agreement. The deficient documents he eventually filed were late and filed in the wrong court. He ignored discovery obligations. At times, he was difficult to contact and at other times simply refused to talk to me. I have had to retain another lawyer who I gave $3500 retainer to do the same job Cowen was supposed to do. For the above reasons I believe my retainer should be refunded in full. Sincerely, Anthony Raymond, Jr. Anthony Raymond 973 Circle Drive Baltimore, MD 21227 November 27, 2005 Robert A. Berns Secretary Supreme Court of New Jersey District Fee Arbitration Committee For Essex County 354 Eisenhower Parkway-Plaza II Livingston, NJ 07039 RE: District Docket No. V-A-05-24F Dear Mr. Berns: This letter is in response to a copy of the letter I received dated November 23, which was sent to you by Martin Cowen. Cowen states that I delivered several boxes of cards to Lifson. This was not true. There were 446 cards sent in one package. My extensive file provided to you clearly indicates this. Cowen suggests that I would not comply with his suggestions as referred by his Exhibit D. This exhibit clearly indicates that I would agree to “evaluate” my cards, and I asked about the conditions. He never responded. At no time after I retained Cowen, did he ever notify me that Lifson would reimburse me for damages. Lifson had earlier made promises, all of which he apparently reneged upon. Cowen seems to imply that I later increased the values of my cards. My letter to him dated January 19, 2005, as well as my many exhibits indicates my valuations. Cowen’s Exhibit H is a copy of my email to him, again requesting conditions for the viewing of my property, not the retrieval of my property. Again, he refused to communicate with me as indicated by my later email to him dated March 28. Initially Cowen demanded that I travel to Lifson’s house. Cowen knew that Lifson worked from his house. He did not have an office. I felt this was very inappropriate, particularly because of the following demand: 1. He demanded first that I call the opposing attorneys to arrange a meeting. Cowen refused to involve himself in any such meeting in my behalf. He then demanded that I contact Lifson myself, and arrange to meet Lifson at his convenience. Cowen knew I was having physical difficulties and would have to arrange transportation, yet Cowen refused to provide any advance notice of any meeting. 2. When I suggested that we meet at Cowen’s office, Cowen said he had wasted enough time of my case, and that he would not get involved. 3. I asked if Cowen could at least accompany me, as any such meeting could prove confrontational. He refused, and said “bring a bodyguard.” Cowen clearly indicates that arrangements had been made with the Watchung Police for a meeting. This was not true. Cowen knows this. In my last conversation with Cowen in May, he admitted that he had made no such arrangement. Cowen clearly hoped to have my retrieve my property, without even the opportunity for the two hours I told Cowen I would need. I discharged Cowen on March 31, before he confirmed any meeting with Lifson. Even after his discharge, Cowen still would not clarify any specific meeting date. This meeting date seemed dependent on the convenience of Lifson’s schedule. More importantly, he would never respond about the conditions of the meeting, and the counterclaim. His communications alternate between a review of my property, and the retrieval of my property. During the entire time I retained Cowen, he called me once. This is indicated by Cowen’s own records. My own telephone record will clearly indicate the many calls I was forced to make to Cowen because of his repeated failure to communicate with me. These records will also show I do not have, nor ever have had caller ID. Cowen was discharged because he simply did not do what he had promised. He never filed a counterclaim in the higher court. Consequently, he limited my recovery to a maximum of $15,000. Rather than providing me with the complete refund, he charged me $61.55 for the one call he made to me, and inflated his bill with charges after he was discharged, including his supplemental fee. I feel this is highly unethical. According to your “Information About the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s Attorney Fee Arbitration System”, it is my understanding that attorneys in New Jersey are required to furnish their client with a formal fee agreement. Despite both my written and verbal requests, Cowen failed to provide me with one. He had denied any such requests being made by me, although my original letter of January 19 clearly requests this agreement. Cowen’s response to you does not address this issue. Since my original complaint to you, I have been informed that all of my property has been defaulted, and there is a judgment of $7,300 against me. Cowen’s actions contributed to this loss of my property, and he should be held accountable, because of what I feel has been unethical conduct and behavior. I had previously requested a telephone hearing. Please inform me if you feel it would be in my interests and in the interests of justice if I should attend your hearing in person. I would hope that this complaint is forwarded to your ethics commission for further action. This has been a horrible experience, made much worse by Cowen’s conduct. I hope no other clients, particularly an out of state client would suffer a similar experience being represented by Cowen or any other attorney in New Jersey. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Tony Raymond Cc: Martin Cowen Anthony Raymond, Jr. 973 Circle Drive Baltimore, MD 21227 April 3, 2006 Martin Cowen 17 Academy Street, Suite 415 Newark, NJ 07102 Dear Mr. Cowen: You had indicated that you receive many clients through the Essex County Lawyers Referral Service. I hope that is true. You have caused me great harm and financial troubles by your conduct. I have proven this in the recent hearing. You are responsible for the following expenses directly attributable to your lack of representation in my behalf: 500.00 Legal services charged by you 192.40 Wages lost by forcing me to attend the Fee Arbitration hearing, because you would not provide me a refund. 50.00 Fee to the Grievance Committee. 25.45 Tolls to the hearing. 33.87 Gas expenses to the hearing 33.15 Postage expenditures due to your unethical representation. 8.72 Telephone calls made to you and to other attorneys to attempt to correct the damage done by you. $843.59 TOTAL If you do not forward to me the complete total indicated above within ten days from the date of this letter, then you may be assured that I will exercise my legal right to file both of these complaints. I have been informed that I am now free to initiate a complaint to your Essex County Lawyers Referral Service. I have also been informed that I can also initiate a complaint to the Ethics Committee for Essex County. I will enjoy listening to your explanations of your deal with Kozyra, my forced travel to meet Lifson at either his house or at the Watchung Police Station, your refusal to even accompany and represent me, as well as your fee structure. I also will attempt to prove your actions served to accommodate my adversary, and that I have suffered a loss by those actions. Since you disagree with the findings of the Arbitration Committee, you will again have your opportunity to prove I did not request a formal contract. I was most disturbed by your refusal to forward my papers to my present attorney. As I understand it, you were obligated by law to respond to my attorneys request. You never cared about seeking justice for me, even after I discharged you. You continued to be willing to see me suffer the loss of all of my property. I believe that I can again easily prove your non-compliance with the New Jersey laws, and that you were knowingly in violation of the ethical standards demanded by New Jersey. The amount I am requesting does not include the additional legal expenses and damages I’ve incurred because of your actions. If you comply with my request, I’ll forego any other requests, including possible legal action. I take great exception to your failure to accept responsibilities for your actions, as indicated in your letter dated February 9. You should have complied with my previous requests for a complete refund. The last time I appealed to your sense of ethics, integrity or fair play you may have had, again proved fruitless. Instead you tried to charge me for services rendered after I discharged you. So, instead I appeal to your loss of future income, and to the probable penalties and possible suspension imposed by your Ethics Commission. I expect my complaints will lead to a loss of income from the Essex County Lawyers Referral Service, and you may face probable suspension and penalties from your Office of Attorney Ethics. Your defense was so weak at the previous hearing, I do not believe I will have any difficulty proving you guilty of ethics violations. I also expect you will have to engage the services of another attorney. I will also have the satisfaction that perhaps in the future you will behave more ethically to those who place their trust in you. Sincerely, Anthony Raymond, Jr.
View full review
#1012663 Review #1012663 is a subjective opinion of poster.
Newark, New Jersey
Slavitt And Cowen Consumer Fraud Attorney
  • Cowen
Reason of review
Losses due to being abandoned
Preferred solution
Let the company propose a solution

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content

For more information read Blog article