Class Action Filed to Protect Public from Law Offices' Deceptive Ads and False Claims
Newark, NJ (PRWEB) March 13, 2008 -- Attorney Susan Chana Lask announces a Federal Class Action RICO lawsuit filed in the District Court of New Jersey, Docket 1:08-cv-01212 by Jane F. Hind on behalf of the public against attorney Stephen J. Hyland and his New Jersey associates operating as having "expertise" in same sex couples' issues. The lawsuit alleges Hyland's wholesale unethical legal practices victimize the public confidence in legal services and defrauded the public, State Bar and Judiciary by deceptive advertising about a case he never won and a legal decision that never happened.
The lawsuit alleges Hyland's January 30, 2008 press release e-mailed to major media outlets that republished it in print and on the web falsely states:
"NJ Woman Awarded Equitable Distribution in Domestic Partnership Termination"
"WOODBURY, NJ--Attorneys from the Law Offices of Stephen J. Hyland won a significant victory that will affect the approximately 5,000 gay and lesbian couples who are registered in domestic partnerships. On January 15, 2008, Judge John Tomasello, a Gloucester County family court judge ordered the equitable distribution of a same-sex couple's assets ..... The case was one of first impression that clarified that the New Jersey Domestic Partnership Act allows a court to follow the same principles of asset distribution when terminating a domestic partnership as it does when granting a divorce to a married couple."
Contrary to Hyland's press release, on January 15, 2008, Gloucester County Family Court Judge Tomasello actually denied Mr. Hyland's request for equitable distribution and agreed with Ms. Hind's request for "equitable principles" applied upon a relationship, not a marriage, stating on the record in Docket FM-08-08947-07:
"I, frankly, never saw this case as being anything unusual than any -- the separation of any two other people." and I'm going to apply equitable principles to get a fair result, based upon, not the marriage, but the relationship. and "I think I tried to be careful about not calling anything equitable distribution ..."
The case involved the termination of domestic partners Jane F. Hind and Hyland's client, Sharon Miken. Judge Tomasello simply returned Ms. Miken's $43,000 she paid for a property with interest, totaling $71,000. Sharon Miken, was offered a $53,000.00 settlement by Ms. Hind 9 months ago for the money she contributed to Ms. Hind's home. Mr. Hyland rejected the settlement, leaving Ms. Miken with only $46,000 after deducting his $25,000 legal fee demand from the $71,000. Presumably another $10,000 in legal fees will be demanded from Ms. Miken for Hyland's trial time in a case he lost, leaving a larger loss for her, says Ms. Hind.
On February 22, 2008 Hyland appealed to the Appellate Court for exactly what he claimed he won -- he now wants equitable distribution. He never released his appeal to the media.
"It's not about his client for Hyland, it's about him trying to build a false reputation by targeting the gay community," says Ms. Hind. "At the expense of his clients, Hyland victimizes the public and the Judiciary, leaving clients liable while he financially gains," said attorney Susan Chana Lask representing Ms. Hind. The effect of false information about a case decision causes attorneys to counsel clients differently in family law, causes the public to act differently with respect to their legal rights and property and prejudices cases before judges who follow case law that never happened.
Ms. Lask's office obtained statements from Hyland's present client and another woman who consulted him. According to the lawsuit, Hyland claimed he had connections in government offices to help his clients. A young, 25-year-old female client of Hyland's stated he informed her that a Family Court judge predetermined her case as a marriage and she won three million dollars in a domestic partnership of only 22 months -- a decision that never happened. According to the lawsuit, Hyland directed her to withdraw $58,000.00 in disputed monies, endorse it to him and then demanded the other partner pay him another $100,000 without basis. An immediate court order removed the money from Stephen Hyland's account. According to the lawsuit, Hyland and his client are now defendants in a conspiracy and conversion civil action in New Jersey and his client is a defendant for slander.
Ms. Hind's RICO lawsuit seeks to stop deceptive and fraudulent business practices, ban Mr. Hyland from operating a law office and make full restitution to injured consumers who have been defrauded by false claims of a decision that never happened.
For more information visit www.appellate-brief.com.
Source: PRWeb: Legal / Law
See Also
No comments:
Post a Comment