Skip to comments.Herzfeld & Rubin Accused of Malpractice, Breach of Trust
Posted on 05/05/2012 9:35:36 PM PDT by IsraelBeach
Herzfeld & Rubin Accused of Malpractice, Breach of Trust
Is Herzfeld & Rubin denying heart patient life saving medicine?
By Jonathan Ariel
Israel News Agency
Tel Aviv --- May 5, 2012 ... An Israeli-American citizen has accused Herzfeld & Rubin, a New York law firm of malpractice - withholding payment of life saving heart medicine, allowing an eviction to take place and willfully, maliciously abusing and defrauding a Trust Fund that Herzfeld & Rubin had authored for him in accordance with the instructions of his late father Bernard Leyden.
Herzfeld & Rubin describes itself as "a full service international law firm, headquartered in New York, focusing on products liability, tort and commercial litigation as well as transactional work."
My father, before he died, retained Herzfeld & Rubin to write up and create a Trust for my children and myself. The purpose of the Trust, as written by Herzfeld & Rubin, was to provide for the "well-being and protection of me and my family, and to be there in the event of any emergencies".
Instead of acting to ensure my well-being and protection as the Trust stipulates, in accordance to the wishes of my late father, they have chosen to fight me, and are depleting my Trust to fund the brutal and unnecessary legal battles they are waging against me and my children in the New York Courts.
So far Herzfeld & Rubin has taken over $80,000 in legal fees from my Trust to fund litigation they are waging on behalf of my brother Brian Leyden, to prevent me from gaining access to the funds in my Trust.
As a result I have found myself evicted from my home in Israel which has been completely destroyed, separated from my young children and work opportunities in Israel. In addition they are preventing the fund from paying for physician prescribed heart medicine, without which I am in danger of having a lethal heart attack.
Instead of acting to promote and protect my well-being by counseling my brother, who acts as Trustee, to find healthy solutions and compromises, they march off to Court where they know they can find blank checks from my Trust to support their lavish meals and vacations. Rather than acting in good faith and trying to reach a negotiated settlement, they chose to bully, intimidate and coerce, acting in ways one could expect from Tony Soprano, not Law and Order.
My late father would be turning in his grave if he knew that over $80,000 of his hard earned money had been abused and misused in this way by Herzfeld & Rubin. I am certain that attorney Herb Rubin, for whom he had trusted and worked with for many years is not involved in this malpractice.
The Israeli American, for which we will only identify as Daniel, is an Israeli war hero, an officer (res.) in the Israel Defense Forces who today serves as a senior adviser to the government.
Daniel states that Herzfeld & Rubin are blaming his brother for the decisions that they make. But underscores that this holds no water as they could have resigned from representing his brother and his Trust. He states that if Herzfeld & Rubin chose to negotiate out of court or had resigned, they would not be in a position today to take over $80,000 in legal fees from his Trust to act against him.
He told the Israel News Agency that he has no doubt they intend to continue in this way until the Trust has been entirely depleted, and only then, when this meal ticket no longer exits, will they act to end their involvement and promote a negotiated settlement.
Daniel states that for his brother to attempt to control his life at the age of 60 is perverse. For his brother to attempt to separate him from his children and gather the support of a Jewish law firm - Herzfeld & Rubin is something that defies all Jewish and humanitarian values. Most concerning is that Herzfeld & Rubin has ignored several requests to pay for heart medicine from Daniel's Trust and at the time of this writing Daniel's blood is now clotting.
In addition to allegedly withholding heart medicine from Daniel, Herzfeld & Rubin has placed Daniel under life threatening stress, stress for which three cardiologists in both Israel and New York have warned in writing could kill Daniel given his heart disease.
Daniel's advocate in New York is Michael Lippman. Lippman is a highly respected, honest Estates and Trusts attorney who is working almost pro-bono for the suffering heart patient. Lippman states that he has never witnessed a case where a client of his was denied heart medicine.
"Daniel, is extremely well regarded in Israel," says Rabbi David Marcus of Jerusalem.
"He lives by Rabbi Hillel's verse 'If I am only for myself, what am I?' Daniel has made many sacrifices for Israel and the Jewish nation. Both by placing his life on the front line in the IDF and making financial sacrifices to live with his family in Israel. His brother and Herzfeld & Rubin have no knowledge of Israel and or Israeli culture. But it may be that these cross cultural communications are transcended by greed and malice as it appears that Herzfeld & Rubin have no problem taking 80,000 dollars away from Daniel and his young children.
Furthermore, when Daniel attempted to make public all that Herzfeld & Rubin has done with his money, Herzfeld & Rubin then threatened his attorney with sanctions. If this is not malpractice, then what is?"
Not since Cain killed Abel have we seen a brother so deliberately and calculatingly act in order to bring about his brothers untimely demise as my brother Brian Leyden is doing to me. Unlike Cain, who had to do his dirty work by himself, my brother has the full collaboration of Herzfeld & Rubin, says Daniel.
I have no doubt that had Herzfeld & Rubin been around when Genesis was written, they would have charged Abels heirs for the costs of defending Cain on the murder charges against him.
Herzfeld & Rubin has refused to answer and or respond to any emails or telephone calls by the Israel News Agency. The above case will be heard in New York Supreme Court.
Fleecem ,Dewey and Howe
I thought it was Dewey, Cheathem and Howe.
UPDATE: May 7, 2012 - Attorneys James Kaplan and Amy Altman from Herzfeld & Rubin (not one but now two attorneys depleting funds from the Trust) described Daniel’s requests for heart medicine and the avoidance of an eviction (which has already transpired with the destruction of his home) as “frivolous” in their attempt to keep these requests from the Judge in the Bronx Supreme Court. The Court decided that Daniel was suffering from several emergencies for which the Trust is responsible for addressing and has accepted the case.
In addition, Herzfeld & Rubin have attempted, as thugs in suits, to mislead both the courts and legal counsel by submitting part and not all of Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107. This is not the first time that Herzfeld & Rubin have failed to make complete disclosure in their harassing claims.
Under US law, one has every right to criticize anyone they wish, including law firms (which are not above the law), as long as they do not take this action for profit. Profit may be found through fling a complaint with the New York Bar Association and or a lawsuit resulting from damages due to unethical and negligent behavior by Herzfeld & Rubin.
The below are the contents of what constitutes Fair Use, something that Herzfeld & Rubin dread as it may tarnish their reputation as they sell themselves as honest and ethical attorneys.
Fair Use Notice: This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Note to Herzfeld & Rubin: Jonathan Ariel is an award winning journalist. Former Editor-in-Chief at Maariv International, Managing Editor at Makor Rishon, former Bureau Chief of SABC who also has served as a strategic and communications consultant, COS Designate Chris Hani, former ANC Deputy President, Senior Adviser to former Israeli Minister Ami Ayalon, Special Consultant COPE, Senior Adviser IPU and former consultant to the SA government.
The Prima Facie tort doctrine exists on the fringes of tort law as a theory that allows a plaintiff to recover for damage resulting from a defendant's intentional and malicious infliction of harm.
Under this theory, a court's inquiry focuses on the defendant's motivations and intentions to determine whether liability should be imposed. Courts have used this general doctrine to establish a separate cause of action, the prima facie tort. Alternatively, they have used the theory to justify imposing liability under other causes of action by expanding existing torts or by creating new ones. The courts' various approaches to treatment and application of the prima facie tort doctrine arise from different and often incompatible interpretations of the tort's purpose and required elements.
The prima facie tort is generally defined as the "infliction of intentional harm, resulting in damages, without excuse or justification, by an act or series of acts which would otherwise be lawful."
The specific applications of this definition vary greatly based on the manner in which courts interpret these elements. These divergencies in interpretation lead courts to apply the prima facie tort in inconsistent ways. The courts' confusion in interpretation has three focal points: defining "otherwise lawful," understanding the role of malice in applying the tort, and incorporating "excuse" or "justification" as grounds for denying liability.
The destruction of Joel Leyden's home, an action defended by Herzfeld & Rubin in direct conflict with a Trust that they authored and represent, will be addressed in a 10 million dollar lawsuit in the New York Supreme Court.