Moskovitz Appellate Team - Piedmont, California

Bram Nager

Myron Moskovitz was the most humiliating legal experience in my life. He poorly communicated with me. Mr Moskovitz overcharged, over promised yet badly under performed. I was ashamed he represented me,
During oral arguments he impotently mumbled bumbled fumbled. I was shocked. I asked him why he was so bad he answered “allergies” Offered no apologies seemed to not even care. The appeal panel of judges shredded him quickly. STAY AWAY ! I Do Not recommend Myron Moskovitz and what he calls Moskovitz Appeal Team. He admitted what he referred to as his “business manager” is actually his wife. I feel he exaggerated creating a facade. I was deeply embarrassed by his horrible performance. Look up and listen to his oral arguments in Orange County California
On October 21, 2020 at 9:30 AM. You be the judge.

Steve Won

Worst attorney ever. Charged me $60,000 for a 10 minute hearing before to 9th circuit, Myron was embarrassing. He studdard, lost his train of thought, and seemed confused. He forgot key facts about my case and left me to lose a major decision. Thank you Myron for helping Chase bank screw me out of $500,000. I truly feel you were working with them the whole time. Word of the wise don't ever hire Myron for anything, He's a crook and doesn't care about your case All he wants to do is push his BS books. If you want more info please contact me and I will show u proof

Michael Rooney

As the referring attorney on Steve Won's matter, I must say I could not have been happier with Professor Moskovitz's work. As expected, the briefing was some of the best I have seen. His writing was clear and rigorous, and the arguments were thorough and made sense.

Professor Moskovitz's oral argument at the 9th Circuit was far better than the other side's. I and any of my colleagues who watched it felt like we prevailed.

The Court's ruling on the matter came down adversely on a statute of limitations issue, which was entirely out of our hands. (Whereas Mr. Won did not seek counsel until he discovered the identity theft in 2013, the 9th Circuit ruled that he should have discovered it in 2008.)

Even on this issue, Professor Moskovitz's argument that Chase misled Mr. Won about the reason for his sudden and massive balance increase as the result of a loan transfer, should have prevailed under California law. After all, Chase is a massive bank with a fraud department. Mr. Won is a consumer with no fraud department, who relied on Chase's word about the matter. Reliance on the other party's misrepresentation which hinders your discovery of fraud is a black letter basis to toll the statute of limitations, and this was made loud and clear in Professor Moskovitz's briefing and argument (and which I had raised at the trial court level). But the 9th Circuit held otherwise.

I am not privy to any billing issues Mr. Won experienced, but can say that even attorneys like me think that the US civil justice system's pay-to-play model is fundamentally easier to access for large corporations like Chase Bank, who will foreclose on you even when you prove that your identity was stolen, (and to no consequence), than it is for private citizens like Mr. Won who did nothing wrong and was denied justice by the courts. It is an issue that the legislature should take up.