Richard Pu, PC

Welcome to the Nearby Lawyers platform, your resource for connecting with legal professionals in your local area. Today, we present information regarding Richard Pu, PC, a law firm located at 120 E 90th St #10c, New York, NY 10128, USA. It is crucial for users of this platform to have access to objective information to make informed decisions when selecting legal representation. Therefore, we are providing a detailed introduction based on publicly available feedback regarding Richard Pu, PC.

Richard Pu, PC operates from an office located on East 90th Street in New York City. This Upper East Side address is within a residential and commercial area of Manhattan. While the physical location suggests a presence within the New York legal community, it is essential to consider the experiences of past clients to gain a comprehensive understanding of the services provided.

The core function of a lawyer is to provide legal services and representation to their clients. However, the information available regarding Richard Pu, PC, primarily stems from a single, extensive review detailing a highly negative experience. This review raises significant concerns about the firm's practices and the level of support provided to clients. According to the reviewer, they were allegedly required to perform paralegal work themselves, indicating a potential lack of adequate support staff or a practice of delegating crucial tasks to the client. This is a critical aspect to consider, as effective legal representation often relies on a collaborative effort between the attorney and their paralegal team.

Furthermore, the review states that legal pleadings drafted by Richard Pu were repeatedly rejected by a judge in the Southern District Federal Court. This suggests potential issues with the quality of legal work and a lack of familiarity with court procedures or legal standards. Such repeated rejections can significantly impact the progress and outcome of a case, leading to delays and potentially jeopardizing the client's position.

The timing of the attorney's withdrawal from the case, reportedly right before the trial, is also a serious concern. This action could leave the client in a precarious situation, needing to find new representation at a critical stage of litigation. The reviewer further alleges that during mediation, Richard Pu advocated for a settlement significantly lower than the eventual award, citing the possibility of a lengthy appeal process. While considering the risks of appeal is part of legal strategy, pushing for a settlement that the client ultimately exceeded by a substantial margin raises questions about the attorney's judgment and commitment to achieving the best possible outcome for their client.

The review also highlights a significant point regarding the attorney's alleged failure to thoroughly review critical case materials, specifically an appendix that the client claims proved fraud. The statement that reviewing this material "made him go cross eyed" suggests a lack of diligence or attention to detail, which can be detrimental in complex legal cases where meticulous examination of evidence is paramount. The client believed their case was a "perfect fraud case" supported by a written contract and evidence of intentional over-billing, yet they allege that Richard Pu chose not to pursue this effectively.

Following the mediation and disbursement of funds, the situation reportedly escalated further. The reviewer claims that Richard Pu identified an "overlooked expense" and subsequently sued the client in New York State Supreme Court, despite the initial settlement being reached in Federal Court. This action, particularly against a client whose business was based in Texas and whose case was initially handled in federal jurisdiction, raises questions about the appropriateness of the venue and the justification for additional legal action after a settlement. The client further alleges that the amount sued for exceeded the agreed-upon contingency fee.

As a result of this subsequent lawsuit, the client had to incur additional legal fees to defend themselves, ultimately leading to a Court of Appeals decision where Richard Pu was reportedly ordered to pay the client's legal fees. The review states that this award was made three years prior to the review and has allegedly not been fulfilled. This raises serious concerns about the firm's compliance with court orders and its professional conduct.

The concluding remarks of the review are strongly negative, with the former client labeling Richard Pu as a "Parasite," "Unethical," and someone who "Preys on decent people." While this is a subjective assessment, it is based on the detailed account of their experience with the attorney and should be given due consideration by potential clients.

Given this detailed and highly critical review, it is our responsibility to present this information to local users seeking legal representation through the Nearby Lawyers platform. While every individual's experience may vary, the issues raised in this review are significant and pertain to core aspects of legal practice, including attorney support, competence in legal proceedings, client communication, billing practices, and ethical conduct.

It is important to note that this introduction is based solely on the information available in the provided review. We do not have access to other perspectives or information from Richard Pu, PC, regarding this matter. However, the detailed nature of the negative feedback warrants careful consideration by anyone contemplating hiring this attorney.

As a platform dedicated to connecting users with nearby lawyers, our aim is to provide access to information that can assist in making informed choices. In this instance, the available feedback strongly suggests exercising caution and conducting thorough due diligence before engaging the services of Richard Pu, PC. Potential clients may wish to seek additional reviews or references to gain a broader understanding of the firm's reputation and client experiences.

This introduction serves as an objective presentation of the information available. We encourage users to weigh this information carefully and consider their own specific legal needs and risk tolerance when deciding on legal representation. It is always advisable to interview multiple attorneys, check their credentials and disciplinary records, and seek references before making a hiring decision. The negative experience detailed in the provided review highlights the importance of this thorough vetting process.

In conclusion, while Richard Pu, PC is listed as a nearby lawyer in New York, the publicly available review raises serious concerns about the firm's service quality, ethical practices, and client relations. We urge local users to consider this information carefully as part of their decision-making process when seeking legal counsel.