Imhoff Pitt Reviews

Imhoff Pitt Reviews

Imhoff Pitt reviews: If you want to read a review of Imhoff Pitt, you have to know what you should expect. In this article, you will learn about the false representations that Imhoff and his Attorneys made to Slota, as well as the claims that they committed fraud and deception. These reviews will help you decide whether or not this law firm is right for you. This article also provides helpful information about what you should expect from Imhoff.

Imhoff’s false representations to Slota

In a sex crimes case, the failure to provide competent counsel, independent experts, or representation could lead to a claim for attorneys’ malpractice. However, to prevail on such a claim, Slota must show that the attorneys’ actions resulted in his damages. In this case, Imhoff and Pitt failed to do so. Therefore, Imhoff’s representation of Slota’s case was ineffective.

Although the Attorneys and Imhoff made false representations to Slota, the alleged conduct is not sufficiently egregious to support a separate fraud claim. Rather, the Attorneys‘ failure to provide these services was a breach of their duty to Slota. Accordingly, Slota’s claims were dismissed. Although the claim against the Attorneys is meritless, the misconduct of the attorneys in this case is a matter of public record.

Imhoff and Attorneys moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the claims against them were time-barred under SDCL 15-2-14.2, the South Dakota code governing legal malpractice and fraud. The circuit court determined that Slota had brought his claims more than three years after the Attorneys’ conduct. In the end, the court dismissed all the claims without a trial. The result: Imhoff Pitt is no longer responsible for a wrongful act or omission.

Attorneys’ false representations to Slota

The imhoff Pitt attorneys failed to represent Slota fairly and reasonably. This resulting in Slota’s conviction for first-degree rape. A habeas court later vacated Slota’s conviction, finding that his legal representation during trial was constitutionally deficient. After the vacatur, Slota sued Imhoff and Associates, P.C., naming the Attorneys in the lawsuit. Slota claimed legal malpractice, fraud, and deceit on the part of Imhoff. Imhoff and Attorneys moved for judgment on the pleadings and argued that the claims were barred by time under SDCL 15-2-14.2.

The attorneys were also accused of legal malpractice and other misconduct. Imhoff and Attorneys made false representations to Slota about the nature of his case and how they would proceed. The attorneys also allegedly misrepresented Slota’s defense, claiming that they would obtain a polygraph examination and hire experts to testify on his behalf. Those false representations, in the opinion of Slota, did not amount to fraud. However, Imhoff and Attorneys failed to prove their negligence by failing to provide the services that Slota required.

Although the imhoff and Attorneys did violate the law, the claims filed by Slota are not a part of the attorney-client relationship. As a result, Slota’s claims against Imhoff Pitt attorneys cannot be categorized as legal malpractice. Therefore, Slota’s claim against Imhoff and Attorneys is barred by the statute of repose. The court ruled that Slota’s complaint was filed more than three years after the Attorneys’ conduct.

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.