X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1478407

Complaint Review: Terrence Oved from Oved & Oved LLP - New York City New York

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: John — NY New York United States
  • Terrence Oved from Oved & Oved LLP 401 Greenwich St New York City, New York United States

Terrence Oved from Oved & Oved LLP Darren Oved overchages and sues their own clients. New York City New York

*Author of original report: Oved & Oved, LLP v. Zane

*Consumer Comment: So

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Click here now..

Oved & Oved LLP overcharges clients and sues them aftwerwards. They also have a PR firm on retainer to leak confidential information of their clients in order to get their name in the press. https://nypost.com/2017/09/27/coat-maker-claims-vince-camuto-ruined-its-business/

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 05/08/2019 09:07 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/report/terrence-oved-llp/new-york-city-darren-amp-sues-1478407. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
1Author
1Consumer
0Employee/Owner

#2 Author of original report

Oved & Oved, LLP v. Zane

AUTHOR: John - (United States)

POSTED: Monday, June 03, 2019

Law Office of Neil J. Saltzman, New York (Neil J. Saltzman of counsel), for appellant.

Oved & Oved, LLP, New York (Edward C. Wipper of counsel), for respondent.

Richter, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Moulton, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Arlene P. Bluth, J.), entered February 10, 2017, which, inter alia, denied defendant's motion to disqualify plaintiff to act as counsel in this action seeking to recover legal fees, unanimously affirmed, with costs.Defendant's motion was properly denied because "[w]hile the disciplinary rules preclude an attorney from acting as both witness and advocate in the same proceeding, the prohibition does not apply where, as here, the attorney is a litigant" ( Walker & Bailey v. We Try Harder, 123 A.D.2d 256, 257, 506 N.Y.S.2d 163 [1st Dept. 1986] ). The fact that plaintiff is seeking to recover fees under a theory of quantum meruit does not compel a different result. Furthermore, rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct ( 22 NYCRR 1200.0 ), which seeks to avoid a conflict of interest between an attorney's former and current client on a substantially related matter, does not apply here, where the attorney is acting pro se to recover legal fees (see id. ).

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York Jun 21, 2018

75 N.Y.S.3d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 2018)Copy Citation

75 N.Y.S.3d 417•162 A.D.3d 569•2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 4664

Respond to this report!

#1 Consumer Comment

So

AUTHOR: Stacey - (United States)

POSTED: Wednesday, May 08, 2019

What are they suing people for?? You failed to mention that in this report. Please elaberate

Respond to this report!