John R. of

John R. Cahill of Lynn & Cahill, LLP John R. Cahill, Esq. JOHN R. CAHILL SHOULD BE DISBARRED FOR HIS GROSSLY UNETHICAL CONDUCT. HE VIOLATES ATTY-CLIEN

25th of Feb, 2011 by User798149

I hired John Cahill, Esq. of Lynn & Cahill a few years ago because he was supposed to be an expert in Art Law, but he proved to be one of the most abusive and unethical lawyers I have ever encountered. He is a confidence man, gaining one's trust only to violate it wholesale-- so BEWARE of John Cahill, Esq. ! He got me to completely trust him and believe he was committed to helping me, taking advantage of a family tragedy I was going through. John R. Cahill then persuaded me of the merits to filing not one, but two lawsuits in New York (one in federal court) that he knew belonged in New Jersey probate court, because he is only licensed to practice law in New York, not New Jersey. He later confessed there was no chance of ever winning either case, but that he would take them as far as he could before getting sanctioned in order to "shake down" the opponent and "spook" them into settling-- but that he never intended to pursue the cases further. Only after “churning” and collecting exorbitant fees from me, he admitted there were no damages for me to claim --even though his lawsuit on my behalf sued my opponent for a million dollars!! He also later confessed the problems with jurisdiction were insurmountable, something he never told me before. John R. Cahill later defended his conduct as extremely risky, but not unethical; however, risk implies there is some chance of success, even a remote one. The lawsuits Cahill filed on my behalf cannot be characterized as "risky" in any manner, since Cahill knew all along there was never any chance of success; they were shams. That's not risky: That's a scam. And if John R Cahill - a bully who arrogantly boasts of his 20+ years of legal experience as a high priced, high rolling Manhattan art world attorney, contends that he didn't realize until many months after he filed the suits (and nearly $100,000 later) that there was no case at all, a position he also took- then he should not be allowed to practice law. After burning through my inheritance, emptying my bank account and maxing out my lines of credit, John R. Cahill threatened to publicly humiliate and embarrass me if I did not voluntarily drop the case, warning of "adverse" legal, financial and personal consequences if I refused. He even sent me an embarrassing 'sample' letter to the judge, stating that he believed I had no case, and complaining that I owed him more money, which he threatened to send if I did not relieve him from the case immediately. (I did.) He also telephoned me at odd hours in loud fits of hysteria with threats and unrepeatable epithets to get me to pay him more money– and then he billed me for his unprofessional tirades and tantrums. After collecting approx. $100,000 (and I believe far more) from me in a short period of time, and accomplishing nothing with those cases beyond creating massive new legal problems and expenses that had not existed before, Lynn & Cahill had the audacity to file a lawsuit against me for additional fees of approx. $57,500 that Cahill claimed I owed. Cahill's lawsuit was filled with hyperbole, personal insults, blatant lies and fabrications. It also made references to entirely unauthorized --and defamatory- conversations about me he claimed to have had with my New Jersey attorneys regarding billing, fees and payments: Unethical, unknown and unauthorized conversations that were not previously disclosed to me. Conversations that John R. Cahill had the shamelessness to bill me for and to cite in his turncoat lawsuit against me. That he would use his own admitted violations of professional ethics and admitted violations of attorney client privilege (committed while he was still being paid to "zealously" represent my interests) – as the basis for a later lawsuit against me defies credulity. It's shocking. Never mind that his lawsuit was filled with the kind of lies and invective one never expects to come from any professional, let alone a high-priced Manhattan attorney with blue chip experience in the art world. To put it gently, it is most unbecoming of an attorney who took around $100,000 from a client under false pretenses, to turn around and unfairly trash her in a public filing over a fee dispute. To put it less gently: what John R. Cahill did to me was sleazy and greedy in the extreme. John R. Cahill is dangerous, and he is bad news. Period. If he did it to me, and he also did it to the other consumer(s) who filed a scam report --he'll do it to you! Don't be blindsided!! I had to hire another high powered firm to deal with Cahill's frivolous lawsuit against me-- even though I had been advised that it's Cahill who should repay me the money he took from me for "churning"-- and not the reverse. Others who are familiar with some of Cahill's unprofessional and bizarre rantings (all on my dime of course) in which he complained about having to feed his family, his sleeping habits - and even about his partner, Mr. Lynn, for example, questioned his mental health and said that any judge or fellow attorney hearing this stuff would consider Cahill a "nut job". Yet having to respond to a nasty lawsuit filed by Lynn & Cahill LLP, short on facts and long on lies --even if it's on behalf of a 'nut job' - was no laughing matter. Not only did Cahill have no case, but filing it was a violation of professional ethics, because Cahill refused to give me the opportunity to request arbitration, something the law required him to do. However, he tried to skirt the law by claiming I owed him more than $50,000, the arbitration cut off limit. And the way he did that was to continue to bill for many, many months after he declared in writing that our business relationship had formally ended and that he was doing no work for me whatsoever. Continuing to bill long after officially ending his representation of me was another deeply disturbing violation of professional ethics. He also did not stop billing me for his highly aggressive collection efforts, involving threats against me and profanity-laced tantrums. To stave off Cahill's lawsuit, I agreed to pay his firm an additional $7,500 immediately to bring his claim under $50,000, so it would be eligible for arbitration-- even though I really didn't owe him one penny. In other words, I allowed John R. Cahill to shake me down. His lawsuit against me turned out to be a complete bluff (and another abuse of the legal system) - exactly like the ones he filed on my behalf when he represented me. But how was I to know that then? It costs Lynn & Cahill very little to sue a client and to shock and intimidate them with the same kind of bluster, personal attacks and hyperbole they use when they're representing their you against third parties. (Potential Lynn & Cahill clients: CAVEAT EMPTOR!!) John R. Cahill can easily file a frivolous lawsuit against a former client, at little expense to him or his firm beyond the time spent. It's a win-win for them; they gambled on the fact that I did not have the time or money to defend myself against their vicious and unfair onslought: They shake me down, they win, just as they did. Or they get a default judgment- they win even more. That the firm Lynn & Cahill had the time or inclination to go after the grieving daughter of a deceased, financially struggling artist from the Pine Barrens of New Jersey like a steamroller, after already taking in a fortune for their abominable performance on my behalf, suggests that they have too much time on their hands, and perhaps not enough other clients willing to pay their huge fees for their (dis) services. What happened to Sotheby's? What happened to Mitchell-Innes & Nash? What happened to all the multi-million dollar estates, galleries artists and museums Lynn & Cahill boasted of representing? Why bully, intimidate and 'shake down' (to use his own words) a hard working single woman earning a modest salary? Is it that I was the low hanging fruit? That I trusted John R. Cahill implicitly and naively paid him approx. $100,000 so unconditionally, thinking he was on my side- something that people who are incomparably wealthier and savvier than me --like museums and power house galleries - would never do? If that's not the case at all (i.e. if the work and money is flowing in to Lynn & Cahill) then it would seem that John R. Cahill is just a greedy, crazed and irrational 'nutjob'. Whatever the diagnosis, this man is not fit to be practicing law. John R. Cahill, apparently throughout his career, according to his own telling, was willing to roll the dice and take the chance that his playing fast and loose with the rules of his profession would keep paying off unchallenged. Something he liked to boast about. Sadly, so far, at least, it seems that he's been right: he rolled the dice by suing me, confident that I could not afford (financially or time wise) to counter sue him, or even to defend myself for too long. Had I called his bluff and fought him in court, the case would have brought to light his ethical misconduct. Cahill gambled that I'd very quickly pay him off as much as he could possibly extract, and that he'd get away scot free with his egregious violations of professional ethics. And once again, Cahill was right. I remain convinced, though, that sooner or later, he is going to self-destruct, and the law will catch up with with this rotten egg- no matter how long it takes. John R. Cahill Esquire is an abusive man: he abuses his clients' trust--as you read in the other online complaints against him -- and he abuses the legal system. He's also a gambler operating on the edge of the law, crossing the line when he feels necessary, and preying upon victims like myself and other consumers who do not have the resources to expose his misconduct and shut him down. Why does the Bar Association allow this? It is reassuring to read the other consumer's complaint against John R. Cahill, which is eerily consistent with mine in its essence. Thank you Thank you Ripoff Report for confirming that we are not alone! John R. Cahill himself has joked blithely that his own behavior is "sanctionable". This is not a man who takes the rules and vows of his own profession seriously. If the system were fair, John R. Cahill would be forced to return most of the huge sums he already collected from me filing for frivolous lawsuits in the wrong jurisdictions that unequivocally violated professional ethics; conduct that should have gotten him sanctioned and/or disbarred; conduct that he knew to be against the best interests of his client, designed primarily to generate or "churn" huge fees for himself and his firm. Instead, the system allows John R. Cahill to file a stunningly baseless lawsuit against me for even more money than the exorbitant fees I already paid him; a lawsuit in which he unabashedly describes how he violated attorney client privilege by discussing our confidential financial arrangements with my other attorneys in other states- something he had no business doing. He obviously knew his lawsuit against me would never see the light of day, so he filled it with sloppy, hyperbolic and self-incriminating statements and lies that were designed to frighten, humiliate, embarrass and intimidate me -- but not to withstand the ethical scrutiny of a judge, jury or peer. As an example, for John R. Cahill to label me a "serial non-payer" after successfully fleecing me to the tune of around $100,000 - $120,000 is not just unbecoming - its patently absurd! Warning to potential clients: John R. Cahill is a loose cannon...Indeed, the problem is that he's so irrational and hot-headed, one could never be sure that he won't follow up on his threats- even if they cause him to self-implode... that's why I paid him off an additional $7,500 to go away. Why John R. Cahill Esquire has not been disbarred, and how judges (or the Bar Association) allow him to continue to abuse the legal system simply baffles me, especially since he has expressed disdain for the judges he goes before, and he mocks his colleagues who are afraid to cross the ethical line: Any client who hires John R. Cahill of Lynn & Cahill should be aware that he will have no compunction about later insulting, libeling, defaming, betraying and even suing them-- as he did to me, and I now know, others. John R. Cahill of Lynn & Cahill is a pit bull but in a bad way, because he alienates, baits and provokes his opponents in such a cruel and insulting manner, that he makes the chances of settlement extremely remote. Put simply: he's a crude and dirty fighter- and his threats usually backfire. Even when he succeeds in bullying, browbeating and bluffing the other side into submission, his legal "win" is likely to be negated by the incalculable damage he causes to his client's reputation and relationships. Besides, John R. Cahill is NOT EVER to be trusted. John R. Cahill, Esq. of Lynn & Cahill in New York City behaves as if the law does not apply to him. Look online. Look up the case of his client Rod Shene. John Cahill argued that a stolen book the German government considered a national cultural treasure (which his client bought for a few thousand dollars) should not be returned to Germany- even though the government (desperate to recover its cultural heritage) offered Shene over $80,000 to buy back its own property-- more than 25 times what Cahill's client Shene paid! Cahill so infuriated the German state and federal government, demanding extortionary amounts to settle (over $500,000) , that he created a diplomatic scandal between the US and Germany, even causing his cancer stricken client Rod Shene to be investigated by the Feds, something that surely would not have happened but for Cahill's provocations. Don’t believe me or other consumers who have posted complaints against John R. Cahill on the Internet: read the articles yourself. They’re free and online. Do your own homework. The fact that Cahill violates attorney client privilege, a common theme in complaints against him, which his own filings clumsily reveal as well, is apparently the least of his sins. In other cases unrelated to any of these, John R. Cahill has been sanctioned and he also caused at least one other of his clients to be sanctioned by allowing her to destroy her hard drive after a notice of discovery was served. Never mind the public embarrassment to her because his (and her) misconduct was reported in the press. All of this is public information that is available from a free Google search. No fancy research tools necessary; no paid subscriptions to find the published article. Again, don't believe us -- look it up! One can only wonder how many other times it’s happened to Cahill but has not been reported. Something tells me this is the tip of the iceberg! Artists, estates, arts organizations and museums, in particular, should do their due diligence before hiring John R. Cahill of Lynn & Cahill to represent their organizations in the courts and in the press. When they do, they will run for the hills! Notwithstanding the sleazy stuff John R. Cahill did to me and other clients, one must ask: how can a cultural organization such as a museum or gallery that is supposed to be pro-artist, have someone representing them who compares the current German government to the Nazi regime (the Germany of old) simply because they are trying to recover a manuscript that was stolen from them during the war? In the Rod Shene case, John R. Cahill's arch nemesis was the hero lawyer who represented victims trying to recover art looted by the Nazis during the Holocaust. I know who's side I'm on. Here is my question to anyone out there who has been disserved by this disgrace to the legal profession: How does John R. Cahill stay in business? Does anyone know whether ethics complaints have ever been filed against him with the Law Division? Has he ever been investigated? If not, why not? If so, what was the outcome of such investigations, if there ever were any? Just wondering.

Track this Report 0 Comment | Post a Comment