Robert Dizon Ponce

Robert Ponce

Due to the highly inflammatory nature of this review, I am compelled to respond. I represented this client in a personal injury claim based upon a motor vehicle accident. It was a very challenging case in that she was concluded to be at fault by not only the opposing party, but the opposing party’s insurance company and her insurance company as well. However, the client insisted she was not at fault, and supported her claim by her factual version of the accident. Other than vehicle damage, there was very little forensic evidence upon which to build a case. There were no skid marks, debris pattern, etc. Additionally, there was no police investigation. I decided to represent this client specifically because of the case challenges. In my practice, I have successfully litigated complex cases, with very positive outcomes. In one instance, nine attorneys rejected a slip and fall case which I accepted and obtained a $175,000 recovery for the client. Here, the challenge was/is to establish a compelling case consisting of accident reconstruction based upon accepted scientific principles. It takes time to establish such a case. This was to be done prior to filing a lawsuit. There was a disconnect between our strategy to reconstruct her accident and the client’s understanding of the needs to obtain such a result. The client did not understand the time and work needed to confirm that she had a viable case to proceed forward with a lawsuit. The client terminated our services prior to filing the lawsuit. Since the statute of limitations will not expire for some time, she remains free to pursue her claim. My office represented the client on a contingency fee basis and since there is no recovery as of yet, we have not been paid for our representation. Her inflammatory remarks must be addressed. First, there was no “lying” or other misrepresentation made by me or anyone from my office. Secondly, our practice is to thoroughly and properly prepare each case so as to obtain the best resolution for the client either by way of settlement or a litigated outcome. We intended to prepare her case in the same manner we prepare all of our cases. Lastly, we asked her to sign a receipt acknowledging return of the file contents to her. She refused. The signed receipt is needed in the event a claim is made that the client never received the file. When she refused to sign the receipt, a photograph was taken showing her having possession of the file contents. There was no “intimidation”. Despite the anger and misunderstanding of the need for proper case preparation, we wish her well.