Lori Dvorak – Abandonment and malpractice

Lori Dvorak Reviews & Complaints

Reported By: Tony Raymond

Contact information:
Lori Dvorak

Anthony Raymond
973 Circle Drive
Baltimore, MD 21227

[email protected]

I invite anyone to contact me for additional information.


Would you want to retain a lawyer who abandons her clients? Anybody considering retaining Lori Dvorak should first read the following:

I was looking for an honest attorney to represent me regarding consumer fraud. I was a victim of consumer fraud. The company/person refused to return my property to me, and they sued me for $7,500. I initially hired two attorneys, both of whom took my retainer and did nothing. Both times I found out from the court I was represented pro se. The second attorney did not even show up for a hearing, and a judgment was entered against me for the $7,500. I hired a firm to vacate the judgment, and to counterclaim for the value of my property. I had a witness who was deposed for 9 hours. The firm switched lawyers on me 3 times, and in the transition lost important evidence, both from my witness, and also important prices realized related to the valuation of my property. I had not heard from Dvorak for over 3 months. When I called her office I was told she was no longer employed at the firm. In February, 2013 that Lori Dvorak indicated to her Ethics Committee that she did not abandon me, but she was locked out and could not represent me. Her firm told me she had my files when she left the firm, and could have chosen to not only contact me, but to continue to represent me. Dvorak did not even have the decency or ethics to refer me to another lawyer.
I was not given my legal right to have Lori continue her representation should I have chosen to do so. Dvorak abandoned me without even the courtesy of contacting me.
The day of trial I was refused a jury trial as promised. The day of trial I was told they would not use my witness that Dvorak deposed “because you know your witness and the judge will look unfavorable on it.” I could not win my case without any witness. The judge said I should have had a witness. He said the Court could not award damages since my claim did not include bailment. His counterclaim was worthless. I lost over $100,000 in property and I was charged $57,000 to get a $7,500 judgment vacated. Dvorak could have prevented this action from taking place.
Dvorak was supposed to counterclaim at treble damages. According to the Judge, the Court could not award any damages since my counterclaim neglected to include bailment, and I should
have presented a witness. Please note that I have hard copies of all files, including all motions, and some sample catalogs and their auction results which were supposed to be have been used at trial.

I believe Lori Dvorak is guilty of unjust enrichment, as well as breach of contract. Her negligence and more importantly her abandonment caused the loss of my property valued in excess of $125,000.

I invite anyone to contact me directly for additional information.

As follows are communications related to my review:

To: Lori Dvorak
Marc Mory

From: Tony Raymond

September 18, 2006

I understand the difficulty in representing someone from out of state. However, we do not seem to be communicating effectively about my case. The following miscommunications and problems have occurred:

1. My deposition-card review. You failed to adequately prepare me for my deposition. You did not tell me what documents to bring, and failed to review possible questions with me. As a result of your failuretoseriously discuss the deposition with me, I was unprepared for reviewing the cards, and determining which cards were substituted and/or damaged. I was not informed I would have to review the cards again. Consequently, I brought neither a magnifier or ruler, nor Tom Coleman’s notes. More importantly, I needed Lifson’s grading of my cards which your office had in his Plaintiff’s Initial Answers to Defendant’s First Set of Interrogatories (page 13, 14). You were either unprepared or were unable to locate this information at my deposition. I did not know the name of the document they were in, and they were not made available to me at that time. My review was very incomplete without this information. In addition, had I known I would have to review my cards again, I would have brought a copy of Lifson’s email to me dated 10/27/03 (my exhibit #23). Please inform me if there is any way we can minimize the damage to my case caused by the deposition.

2. My deposition-2003 Price Guide Valuations. Much time could have
been saved had I been informed I would havee to bring all price
guides. Only by chance did your office have copies of two of the
price guides. The Beckett Guide was at home, and with notice I
could have brought it. Marc did not want me to use the Price Guide
Card Valuations your office had. As a result, this became a very
time-consuming and exasperating experience to explain why my
valuations were not supported by documents.

3. Communications-depositions and emails. The afternoon before my deposition Maryanne called me to remind me of the deposition. I confirmed my attendance. She called back three minutes later to tell me she sent an email. I told her I only access my emails three times a week, I do not own a computer, and would not access my emails later that evening. I have emailed both Mike and Lore to inform them of this. At a later date, I mentioned to Maryanne that I never did receive the email she said she forwarded. After checking, she had an incorrect email address. On September 11, days after my deposition I finally received the email for my records. After many months of representation this obviously concerns me. There is no way for me to know how many other emails I have not received from your firm.

4. Proposed conference call. At my deposition Marc stated the necessity for a conference call. Three times I have agreed to a date and time. Each time the call was cancelled, the most recent of which was scheduled for Friday, September 15. Each time I have had to return calls to Maryanne to confirm, and then at a later date to be informed it was changed.

5. Deposition schedule. Before my deposition I made repeated follow-up calls to Maryanne concerning my availability. Each time I agreed to the date Kozyra wanted. Then Kozyra would apparently state it was not convenient. I think it would have proved expedient to first confirm a date or two, and then contact me.

6. General communication. I have mentioned to everyone that the best time to reach me is after 4 p.m. For some reason, I continue to receive calls from Maryanne in the morning.

7. Witness deposition. At my deposition, I inquired when Lifson’s witness was to be deposed. Marc knew nothing about this witness. I earlier stated that it was reasonable to depose both Lifson and his witness on the same day, particularly since there had been ample time to schedule. I do not think it’s reasonable to make me responsib;le for additional travel and time expenses if they are not deposed on the same day. I expressed my concerns about this, but to date I am uninformed about your schedule.

8. Other problems. I have the “Beckett Baseball Card Monthly Vintage’ dated April, 2003. This is referenced in my “Price Guide Card Valuations” that you have. Do you need it sent, or just the appropriate 2 pages relating to the 1955 baseball cards, and the 1952 football cards sent or faxed?

I would appreciate a dialogue to try to resolve these issues, and attempt to prevent any repetition in the future.


Tony Raymond

To: Dvorak’s firm

From: Tony Raymond

December 18, 2006

Dear Mr. :

I appreciate your taking the time to talk with me on December 14, 2006. I thank you
for your reassurances.

However, I was very disappointed that I was not told that Lori Dvorak left your firm
and apparently abandoned my case.

This will now be the third lawyer at your firm who is looking at my case for the first
time. It seems that I have relegated to the bottom of the barrel. Although I still have confidence in your firm based on your representations, I am very upset at the thought of having to pay for new lawyers to get up to speed on my case.

In the past there have been several notable problems as a result of inattention by your lawyers as follows:

1. My judgment is still in effect, as reported to me by Equifax and Experion. This has affected not only my credit, but also my job search.
2. Ms. Dvorak has not responded to my suggestions regarding depositions. Marc Mori
suggested that I respond to Lifson’s Appraisal report dated 9/21/06. Again, I have never
even received the courtesy of a response. When Mike Weisslitz represented me, he always
encouraged feedback, and always responded.
3. Despite my repeated requests since my deposition, I have not received Tom’s notes. These are important documents.
4. During my deposition, much time and expense was spent looking for legal documents which were not found. This entailed much additional time spent in deposition. Cards were photocopied which had already been photocopied at Tom Coleman’s deposition.
5. My last bill from your office includes a reference to 9/27/06. This clearly indicates charges related to my “collectible postcards.” I do not have any collectible postcards. I would have expected any attorney representing me to recognize the difference between sports memorabilia and collectible postcards.
6. Some of my previous concerns are outlined in the attachments I’m including as attachments. With the exception of my letter dated September 18, all of these have been ignored.

I need to have a lawyer who stays with my case. I cannot afford to pay for learning curves. I believe that I have been paying premium rates for less than premium services. I would like to discuss a credit on my bill in accordance with the problems with my representation.

I look forward to discussing this matter with you further.


Tony Raymond

To: Dvorak’s firm

From: Tony Raymond

January 15, 2007

Dear John:

On December 14, 2006 I called your office because I had no contact from Lori Dvorak for over two months. I learned that she left you’re your firm in October, and that I am not being currently represented by anyone. Although she was supposed to be representing me, I was never informed of her departure.

Later that day I spoke with _______. He assured me that I would be contacted within five days by another attorney within your firm. He could not tell me why I have not been informed of Dvorak’s departure, or why my checks to your firm had not been cashed. I sent Patrick Bartels a letter expressing my concerns, as well as letters sent to Lori Dvorak which had not been answered. To date, I have never received a response to my letter. Although Mr. Bartels specifically indicated I would be contacted within five days, I never heard from another attorney at Keefe Bartels.

In August, I gave Marc Mori letters from two credit agencies. They reported to me that there was still a judgment against me. He promised he and Lori would investigate this. I’m still waiting for a reply from your office. This has damaged my credit rating, and also affected my job search.

I still have never received any indication that Lifson was deposed. If he was deposed by Lori Dvorak, I have concerns about the effort and effectiveness of the deposition. Why would she depose him when she planned to leave your firm? How effective was the deposition if she considers my property to be postcards? I provided a list of questions for both Lifson and his witness. Again, this effort was apparently a waste of my time, since again I’m still waiting for a response.

Apparently both she and Marc Mori left your firm some time ago. Neither
she nor your firm have notified me. When Mike Weisslitz resigned from your firm, both he and Ms. Dvorak assured me that this transition would not interfere with my counterclaim, nor would it compromise my case. My case has been treated like a bottom of the barrel case. I have been charged premium rates, without premium service and consideration.

I have made many requests for tom Coleman’s notes. All of these requests have been ignored.

On January 3, 2007 we spoke. You could not tell me if Lifson was even deposed, nor could you tell me if a claim had been filed with your Supreme Court. You apologized to me, and assured me that you and two attorneys with your firm would again review my entire case. You assured me that you would call me no later than Wednesday, January 10. There was no call from your office as you promised.

Your initial letter to me of December 12, 2005 states, “We hope that you give us the opportunity to represent you in this matter, and further show you that there are attorneys out there who still believe in Zealously representing their clients, and who value client satisfaction and above all else.”

I am very disappointed. I feel that I have been abandoned, and that my efforts to seek justice have been compromised.


Tony Raymond

973 Circle Drive
Baltimore, MD 21227
Email: [email protected]
Home: (410) 247-0837

October 10, 2012

Supreme Court of New Jersey
District Ethics Committee
For Middlesex County
1918 Highway 27
P.O. Box 593
Edison, NJ 08818

Dear Sir/Madam:

Lori Dvorak formally worked at her firm. She replaced another attorney representing me. I reluctantly agreed, as I was assured she knew about sports collectibles. She continually referred to my baseball and football cards as “collectible postcards.”

I note the following areas of her negligence:

1. Abandonment of a client’s matter and lack of due diligence. Dvorak left the firm, and never informed me. She also never even communicated with Keefe Bartels about my case.
2. Losing evidence.
2.1 I gave her several irreplaceable catalogs and other documents that were crucial to my case. After her departure these were never located.
2.2 She either lost my witnesses notes taken during his deposition. These were crucial to my case. As a result my witness was not used.
3. Payment for duplication of effort by various attorneys. I also had to sending duplicate information regarding my witness and my evidence given to both Dvorak and the previous attorney.
4. Lack of communications on a consistent basis.
5. I was promised a jury trial, which I never had.
6. My witness was not used as promised.

As I expected, without my witness my trail was just a waste of time and money. Many important issues were just ignored at my trial. Essentially, I was just set up to lose my case. My efforts to seek justice have been compromised. The end result was I was forced to accept at trial a box of worthless trimmed cards which were not mine.

I also never received the return of my property as follows: various Mastro and Heritage auction catalogs and their auction results; various printouts of those catalogs auction results; some 1955 high-grade baseball cards; Sports Collectors Digest Certified Card Price Guide; the book Sports Collectibles Digest Baseball Cards Questions and Answers.

I am very disappointed and very angry about her “representation.” I believe she negligently abandoned my case, and has violated professional ethics, as well as professional malpractice. My efforts to seek justice were compromised. More importantly, I have suffered the loss of all of my property valued at $126,000.

I hope that in the future your actions will prevent clients being abandoned by Dvorak in such an unprofessional and unethical manner.


Tony Raymond

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *