Omel Andres Nieves

In 2014, Nieves' firm, Hunt Ortmann, agreed to represent me in a $112,500 case. Nieves, a partner in the firm, oversaw and guided the two attorneys who worked on my case. Somehow, 4 years later, Hunt Ortmann had billed me roughly $350,000 while recovering less than $10,000. Nieves and his firm handed my case to a brand new attorney (new attorney admitted to CA State Bar the day after I signed my retainer agreement with Hunt Ortmann). Other attorneys have reviewed my bills from Hunt Ortmann and concluded that the new attorney egregiously overbilled me because it seemed I was paying for his on the job training. Nieves' firm mislead me about recoverable attorney fees while pursuing a defendant for 16 months and obtaining zero dollars. Nieves' firm obtained a default judgment only to have the judgment vacated because the firm "STRATEGICALLY DECIDED NOT TO SERVE A FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ON A MAJORITY OF THE DEFENDANTS". Yes, Nieves' firm, Hunt Ortmann, intentionally failed to serve a first amended complaint. Hunt Ortmann also intentionally mislead the court by asking for that default judgment ON THE COMPLAINT instead of informing the court that a valid and operative first amended complaint existed. Hunt Ortmann made numerous mistakes on my still unresolved case, charged me to try and correct those mistakes, and abruptly threatened to withdraw from my case at the worst possible time. Each of their mistakes are a matter of public record now. The judge informed Nieves' co-workers in person that they should have served a First Amended complaint (common sense), and that they should have asked for a judgment on the amended complaint, not the original complaint. I would not recommend this attorney or this law firm to anyone!