Author: <span>Peter Pattakos</span>

Parties now free to communicate with the public to seek further information about alleged fraudulent business practices employed by Akron-based personal injury law firm Kisling, Nestico, and Redick

AKRON, OHIO — This morning, Summit County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alison Breaux issued a ruling lifting the gag order that she had imposed on the parties to the putative class-action lawsuit alleging that Akron-based personal injury firm Kisling, Nestico, and Redick (“KNR”) and its owners, Alberto (“Rob”) Nestico and Robert Redick, engaged in various schemes to defraud their clients.

On August, 10, 2017, The Ohio Supreme Court, issued a 4-3 decision granting petitioners’ request for a writ of mandamus requiring Cleveland City Council to process a referendum petition on a controversial subsidy to pay for renovations to Quicken Loans Arena.

CLEVELAND, OH – On June 8, 2017, the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County issued its ruling on the appeal in Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School. The ruling affirms the trial victory for Plaintiffs Christina Cruz (a former student of the nanny school) and Heidi Kaiser (a former employee). The evidence at trial showed that the nanny-training school and placement agency in Chagrin Falls, Ohio and its owners, defendants Sheilagh Roth and Bradford Gaylord, retaliated against Cruz and Kaiser when they resisted defendants’ efforts to suppress Ms. Cruz’s report that she witnessed the defendants’ client sexually abusing his nine-year-old daughter.

CLEVELAND, OHIO – A proposed amended complaint filed on March 22, 2017 in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas by three former clients of the Ohio personal-injury law firm of Kisling, Nestico, and Redick (“KNR”), alleges that the firm and its owners, Alberto (“Rob”) Nestico and Robert Redick, have intentionally deceived and defrauded their clients with kickback schemes involving a network of chiropractors and a now-defunct loan company called Liberty Capital Funding. The class-action complaint further alleges that the Defendants have engaged in a scheme to defraud their clients by charging a fraudulent “investigation fee” for so-called “investigations” that are never performed, and for basic clerical services that are not legally chargeable to the firm’s clients.