Silvia L. Serpe

Promising first impression, disappointing performance Initially, Silvia impresses as bright, dynamic and eager to engage. She has sterling credentials, and her briefs demonstrate above-average drafting abilities. However, Silvia's prickly thin-skinned defensiveness and exaggerated notions her... own abilities are serious limitations to capable representation. In particular, her dismissive attitude with respect to client concerns and her righteous conviction that she is beyond all reproach limit her ability to acknowledge mistakes, some very serious, and to course-correct. On a series of occasions, Silvia sought to cast blame in all directions and steadfastly refused to accept any accountability while at the same time offering no reasoning in defense of her views. When it became apparent that Silvia was out of her depth, she became aggressive and indignant at the mere suggestion that we seek the advice of an authority in the field. On a question relating to a claim for defamation, she could not acknowledge the importance of the common-sense proposition we identify the source of the defamatory statement. In connection with a claim for emotional distress, Silvia was unfamiliar with the black-letter law. She flailed in oral argument, failing miserably to convey that this claim is unavailable where remedy is found in other traditional torts. She also failed to note that the only relevant case cited by opposing counsel had been decisively overturned by recent decisions of higher courts. As a result I was left with a costly appeal to correct her errors. On another occasion, in connection with the routine engagement of an investigator, I raised with her the question of attorney-client privilege, which requires that the investigator be engaged directly by the attorney rather than by the client. Despite crystal clear contractual language that all charges had been pre-paid and no financial liability attached, Silvia flatly and without explanation refused to execute the engagement letter. As a result I was denied the benefit of privilege. As I consider it now, Silvia's behavior was very similar with a series of less significant matters; in each case characterized by reflexive obstinacy and unreflective ineptitude. And almost invariably her instincts led her wildly astray. As another example, on one occasion opposing counsel aimed to elicit admissions. The ploy was frankly clumsy and transparent, and yet Silvia not only failed to perceive the objective, she actually hotly criticized responses that did not take the bait (I confirmed this scenario with several senior litigators). On yet another occasion the court clerk reeled off a list of offenses she proposed might stick; Silvia mutely allowed this to pass without objecting that there was plainly no evidence to support elements critical to such findings. Throughout all of this, not once could Silvia bear to acknowledge a single misstep or error. When brought to her attention, she refused to offer legal reasoning, principles, or precedent in support but instead declared it "intolerable" that a client had the temerity to raise concerns. Silvia's lack of seriousness was underscored by her frequent absences on account of "vacation"; in the six months I worked with her, she took no fewer than three extended holidays in each case of several weeks. Lawyers at the defense bar know they will be highly compensated regardless of performance, and that clients have little means to assess or compare their relative capabilities in advance and no means to hold them accountable after the fact. The incentives reward salesmanship over competence and service. Sadly, despite initial impressions, Silvia is among the former class. If you are seeking capable, conscientious representation and an attorney who will put your interests ahead of her own, you'd be best advised to look elsewhere for counsel. You don't want to work with Silvia. Good luck.