From Lento Law Group PC v. Estrada, decided last week by Judge Mia Roberts Perez (E.D. Pa.):
This case involves negative online reviews posted by a client who retained Plaintiffs Lento Law Group PC and Lento Law Firm (together, “Lento Law”) as counsel in two legal matters in the fall of 2024. Dissatisfied with Lento Law’s communication, advice, and representation, Defendant Kris Emmanuel Estrada wrote critical reviews on multiple online platforms asserting Lento Law was unprofessional, unethical, and uncommunicative, and that it altogether provided inadequate legal services.
Lento Law holds itself out as a national law firm specializing in education matters. Lento Law Group was founded by Joseph D. Lento, who was also the sole owner of Lento Law Firm. As of July 2024, Mr. Lento was Lento Law Firm’s only employee and Lento Law Group’s managing attorney. Mr. Lento has been suspended from practicing law in multiple jurisdictions for a multitude of violations of the professional rules of conduct occurring both before and after the events of this case.
Nonetheless, Lento Law has sued its former client for defamation and other torts, asserting his negative online reviews have harmed its reputation and business prospects. {Lento Law has brought numerous other defamation cases, including at least ten in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2025 alone. E.g., Lento Law Group PC v. Schaffer, Case Id. No. 251201836 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Dec. 13, 2025); Lento Law Firm LLC v. Jones, Case Id. No. 251201833 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Dec. 13, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Bahram, Case Id. No. 251103741 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Nov. 26, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Christenson, Case Id. No. 251002164 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Oct. 20, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Coombes, Case Id. No. 250503786 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Aug. 21, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Anozie, Case Id. No. 250503791 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., May 30, 2025); Lento Law Group LC v. Sejour, Case Id. No. 250503782 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., May 30, 2025); Lento Law Group v. Coombes, Case Id. No. 250503786 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., May 30, 2025); Lento Law Group PC v. Feuerborn, Case Id. No. 250201901 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Feb. 12, 2025); Lento Law Firm v. Walker, Case Id. No. 250202270 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Feb. 17, 2025); Lento Law Firm v. Doe 1-8, Case Id. No. 231102406 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Nov. 20, 2023); Lento Law Firm v. Ibrahim, Case Id. No. 240400659 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Apr. 4, 2024); Lento Law Firm v. Pandey, Case Id. No. 231100674 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Nov. 4, 2023); Lento Law Firm v. Myers, Case Id. No. 230900741 (Phila. Ct. Comm. Pls., Sept. 8, 2023).} Estrada moves to dismiss, arguing, inter alia, the statements contained within his online reviews of Lento Law cannot sustain a defamation claim because they are not capable of defamatory meaning. The Court agrees. The online reviews are either admittedly true, statements of opinion, or otherwise not capable of the defamatory meaning Lento Law ascribes to them. For these reasons, and the reasons discussed herein, Lento Law’s claims must be dismissed.
Moreover, because Lento Law’s claims are based on Estrada’s protected public expression and Lento Law has failed to state a claim, Estrada is immune under Pennsylvania’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act and is entitled to his attorneys’ fees, court costs, and expenses of litigation….
In August 2024, Estrada retained Lento Law for representation in a university-level disciplinary matter at American University in Washington, D.C., and a criminal matter in Washington, D.C. Superior Court. Thomas Terrill was assigned to oversee the university-level matter, and Terrell Ratliff, who is not licensed to practice law in D.C., was assigned to handle the criminal matter. Estrada executed separate fee agreements provided by Lento Law and paid $15,000 for the university-level engagement and $5,000 for the criminal matter.
For the criminal matter, Estrada had court dates scheduled in September, October, and November 2024. Ratliff needed to move for pro hac vice admission in the Washington, D.C. Superior Court and could not enter his appearance in the case or represent Estrada at the court dates until he was admitted. Ratliff did not move for pro hac vice admission before Estrada’s September, October, or November court dates. Nor did Ratliff appear at those court dates. On November 8, 2024, before the missed November court date, a conference call was held between Estrada, his mother, Mr. Lento, Terrill, Ratliff, and Groff, during which Estrada was told Ratliff could not enter an appearance until admitted pro hac vice. Beginning in April 2025, Estrada began posting negative reviews about Lento Law’s attorneys and services on more than a dozen online platforms. For example, on Avvo,
Estrada wrote:
After paying $5,000 for court representation, Mr. Lento and his firm failed to represent me by missing three court dates. Mr. Lento also included a media article about my ongoing case on his website without asking for my consent. I also sent Mr. Lento and his firm emails asking for updates on the status of Mr. Terrell Ratliff entering his appearance for my case, and I never received any clear responses. I eventually had a conference call with Mr. Lento and Mr. John E. Groff, who informed me they would draft a statement for the court and also email me the
following day with an update. Yet, this never happened, and my follow-up emails were upsettingly ignored. If they could not appear for me in DC Superior Court because they needed a DC lawyer for support, then I wish they would have informed me about this in advance, especially considering that an office address in Washington DC is listed on their website [emphasis added to statements Lento Law contends are false].
On a social media site, Estrada wrote:
I am very disappointed with the Lento Law Group. I spent a total of $15,000 for services with Mr. Thomas Terrill, a New York State attorney and University of Miami faculty member who was handling my matter in Washington DC. First, I could not locate their physical office as listed in Regus – Coral Springs – Heron Bay. Second, non-refundable fees are precluded by the Rules of Professional Conduct in Washington DC, yet the Lento Law Group was charging me with non-refundable fees for services rendered in Washington DC. Also, Tom failed to realize that my matter did not fall under Title IX policy, but rather a Non-Title IX policy for which I was not given any right to due process by reviewing evidence and/or any reports. Further, the Lento Law Group published a news article about my case on their website without my permission. It’s frustrating because I trusted them to be experienced in student defense, but they proved the opposite to me based on their lack of organization in my opinion. They refused to issue any refund of the $15,000 and failed to answer formal emails sent to them asking for such refunds when confronted with the DC Rules of Professional Conduct (In re Robert W. Mance)….
The statements Lento Law highlights as being false or creating a false impression can be grouped into four categories:
- Inadequate or unclear communications, see, e.g., ECF No. 18 ¶(“I never received any clear responses” and “[m]y follow-up emails were upsettingly ignored.”), 14 (Ratliff “failed to provide me with regular updates on the progress of entering an appearance for my case.”);
- Inadequate legal representation, see, e.g., ECF No. 18 ¶(“Terrill did not deliver any results for me other than advising me to not do anything.”), 22 & 24 (Terrill failed to review university policy and “failed to realize that my matter did not fall under Title IX policy, but rather a Non-Title IX policy for which I was not given any right to due process by reviewing evidence and/or any reports.”);
- Lento Law was unprofessional and unethical, see, e.g., ECF No. 18 ¶¶ 28, 32; and
- Estrada could not locate Lento Law’s law offices, see e.g., ECF No. 18 ¶¶ 22, 24, 26.
Lento Law does not dispute all of the statements Estrada wrote within the reviews. For example, Lento Law does not dispute that Ratliff failed to enter his appearance in the criminal matter or missed the three court dates. Nor does Lento Law aver it was false that they never drafted a letter to the Court explaining the delays, despite promising to do so. Lento Law argues instead that those statements are misleading and create a false impression that it never explained the reason for the delays because, Lento Law contends, they explained to Estrada the pro hac vice requirement. However, Lento Law also avers only that they explained the pro hac vice requirement and related delays on November 8, 2024—after the first two court dates were missed….
In substance, much of the SAC faults Estrada, not for falsely describing what occurred, but for declining to accompany his criticism with Lento Law’s preferred account of it. Lento Law does not deny the unentered appearance, the missed court dates, or the unanswered communications before at least two of those missed court dates. Lento Law’s objection is that Estrada’s reviews did not also convey Lento Law’s explanations for them.
The court ultimately concluded granted defendant’s motion to dismiss, on various grounds, including that “Many of the Statements Are Non-Actionable Opinions.” It also held that the New Jersey anti-SLAPP law’s attorney fee shifting provisions applied in federal court, and defendant was entitled to be reimbursed for his reasonable attorney fees. But in the process, it also wrote this, under the heading “Lento Law’s Reputation”:
As noted above, Lento Law is inextricably intertwined with the managing attorney and/or sole owner and the companies’ namesake, Joseph Lento. Independent of Estrada’s online reviews, Mr. Lento has a publicly documented disciplinary history spanning multiple jurisdictions. In July 2024, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a 135-page Report and Recommendation unanimously recommending Mr. Lento be suspended for five years due to his serious professional misconduct in connection with six matters. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania followed that recommendation on November 19, 2024, and suspended Mr. Lento from the Bar of Pennsylvania for five years. The Supreme Court of New Jersey followed suit in April 2026, suspending Mr. Lento’s New Jersey license for two years because the same unethical conduct also violated New Jersey’s Rules of Professional Conduct. On April 28, 2026, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania referred Mr. Lento to the Disciplinary Board to determine the extent to which he was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law while his license was suspended.
These recent disciplinary actions, however, are not fully representative of Mr. Lento’s significant disciplinary history. In Pennsylvania, he received a one-year suspension on July 17, 2013 for violations of multiple professional rules. On April 26, 2017, New Jersey suspended his license to practice law for one year, based on the 2013 Pennsylvania suspension, the conduct for which also violated New Jersey’s professional rules. In June 2025, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspended Mr. Lento from practicing law in the Commonwealth of Virginia for violations of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct requiring, inter alia, competence, diligence, communication, reasonable fees.
In the July 2024 Report & Recommendation, the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania found that Mr. Lento “placed profit over professionalism,” “employed a predatory style of taking on client representation, failing to ascertain whether the client’s goals could be accomplished, and nevertheless accepting legal fees,” failed to supervise the attorneys he assigned to clients’ cases or “himself failed to do the work,” and chose “to operate a law practice outside the bounds of the rules.” The Board concluded that the record contained “no evidence that [Mr. Lento] had genuine concern for his clients.” The Commonwealth of Virginia’s Disciplinary Board likewise observed that “[a]fter 17 years of practicing law, in which he has received sanctions for his misconduct, [Mr. Lento] appears to have learned little from that experience.”
The Court includes this background information for very limited purposes: this context does not bear on the merits determination of whether Lento Law has stated a defamation (or any other) claim. However, it does bear on Estrada’s anti-SLAPP arguments and the nature of online reviews of legal professionals and whether those reviews constitute protected public expression. It also bears on the practicality of Lento Law’s claim for damages, though that is not an issue for this stage of the litigation.
The Court recognizes that Pennsylvania has not “adopted the libel-proof plaintiff doctrine as a bar to liability, at the pleading stage or otherwise.” “To the contrary, … the Pennsylvania Supreme Court appears to treat the issue of a plaintiff’s already tarnished reputation as going to damages.” The Court, therefore, does not rely on any of the facts recounted in this Section as grounds for its decision, and the analysis that follows—whether Estrada’s statements are actionable under Pennsylvania defamation law—would be the same on a spotless disciplinary record.
The Court notes this history only because it bears on the practical viability of these claims: were they to proceed, Lento Law would face steep challenges in proving they suffered damages from Estrada’s online reviews. That is true whether or not Lento Law proceeds on a theory of defamation per se….
Seth A. Goldberg (Pashman Stein Walder Hayden) represents Estrada.
Below is a statement from Paul Batista, counsel for Joseph Lento, regarding the decision in the Estrada case:
We have read Judge Perez’s opinion, and we disagree with her opinion. We will, of course, file an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.
We note that Kris Estrada is a convicted voyeurism offender who was expelled from American University because his voyeurism conviction involved a violation of University policy. Those were facts that had nothing to do with the firm’s representation. Judge Perez made no mention at all of Estrada’s conviction of a crime. [EV adds: Estrada pleaded guilty to five counts of misdemeanor voyeurism; he had been accused of videorecording people using toilets in a public restroom (see also this news story [WUSA9, Jordan Fischer & Sophie Rosenthal]). -EV]
Fundamentally, the anti-SLAPP laws that have become prevalent in the United States, while originally intending to protect First Amendment rights, have been interpreted so broadly that they have emasculated the constitutional right to reputation of the person or business about whom the post is directed. This must end.
Additionally, while stating that it was not relevant to her decision, Judge Perez discussed Mr. Lento’s disciplinary history in unnecessary detail. This was not only superfluous, but it clearly evidenced an improper bias against Mr. Lento that influenced the judge’s decision.
There are other errors in the Judge’s decision that we will note in our appeal.
Despite emphatically maintaining his integrity and competence, Mr. Lento has faced unjust disciplinary decisions before. These unjust decisions were propagated by an incredibly wrongful Pennsylvania 2024 disciplinary decision, which, among other failures, ignored evidence and improperly based its decision on the incorrect standard of proof.
It is also true that Mr. Lento and the firms he founded have successfully represented literally thousands of satisfied clients across the United States, many of whom also faced injustice by those wrongfully holding sway over others. Mr. Lento will always fight the good fight. Over two decades of practice, Mr. Lento has stood tall, and will always stand tall, personally, and on behalf of all who face injustice.
History has unfortunately proven that wrongful or incorrect decisions can be made, be it by a judge, a disciplinary authority, or the like. Judge Perez’s opinion is but another example of an incorrect decision, and it will be appealed.
The post Law Firm Sues Ex-Client for Libel, Judge Lays Out Firm Owner's Disciplinary Record appeared first on Reason.com.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/U80pOXP
via IFTTT