Discover the alarming tactics of attorneys whose primary motivation is self-gain, often at the cost of unsuspecting tenants. At the forefront of our inquiry is David Samuel DeHorse, an attorney whose strategies not only jeopardize the well-being of his clients but also compound the broader challenges plaguing the tenant community. The cycle of aggressive litigation, primarily aimed at inflating attorney fees, invariably culminates in tenants bearing the brunt through heightened rents and  rent hikes.

There’s no denying the commendable efforts of lawyers genuinely dedicated to upholding tenant rights. However, contrasting figures like DeHorse have become notorious for their transient legal wins, leaving tenants in even more unstable situations than before. By unearthing these questionable practices, we aim to underscore the tangible repercussions for tenants: from tarnished rental histories making future housing pursuits difficult, to spiraling costs invariably passed onto them.

Join us in this exploration as we expose these questionable legal maneuvers and their cascading effects on Wisconsin’s tenant community. Stay informed, tread carefully, and ensure your chosen attorney truly prioritizes your welfare.

David Samuel DeHorse, an attorney with a prominent presence in tenant-landlord litigations, has long been a subject of scrutiny and contention. With a reputation for prioritizing his own financial interests over his clients’ welfare, DeHorse’s practices and strategies have raised eyebrows in the legal community and beyond.

 

A common tactic DeHorse employs is filing counterclaims on behalf of his tenant-clients against their landlords. Despite the frequency of these counterclaims, a majority end in failure. While DeHorse may have carved a niche for himself by adeptly defending eviction cases due to procedural oversights, this tactical win often offers only temporary relief. Landlords typically just refile their claims, effectively nullifying the benefits of DeHorse’s interventions. The repercussions of these multiple filings and counter-suits become evident when landlords, conducting routine checks on platforms like CCAP, come across these records. The chances of a tenant securing a future residence diminish significantly with such a tarnished record.

 

One glaring concern is DeHorse’s habit of falsifying claims regarding security deposits on complaints. It’s widely speculated that this is a strategy to entice landlords into litigation. Once embroiled in the process, DeHorse frequently takes an aggressive stance, possibly with the intent of racking up his attorney fees. There have been at least one instance where DeHorse has, rather audaciously, requested actual attorney fees from the court when only reasonable fees are stipulated by the law.

 

A particularly striking case involves a landlord who, attempting to settle, issued a check in the name of DeHorse’s clients for the entire amount requested in the complaint. Rather than informing his clients immediately, DeHorse chose to deposit the check into his trust account and continued driving up his attorney fees via litigation. The clients remained in the dark about this development until the beginning of trial, approximately two years later. The result? A devastating judgment of $7,626.00 against the tenants, with the court dismissing all of DeHorse’s claims against the landlord. Conversations with the landlord post-trial revealed that a reasonable approach by DeHorse, one that genuinely prioritized his clients’ best interests, would have led to a far more favorable outcome by the landlord dismissing the counterclaims.

 

In another illustrative case from 2021, DeHorse represented a tenant who was renting a spacious 5-bedroom house in Edgerton for a mere $850.00. Amidst disputes over rent and unpaid water bills, the landlord magnanimously offered to waive off the tenant’s dues and even proposed a different housing solution free of charge, contingent on the tenant vacating the property. Instead of seizing this golden opportunity, DeHorse and his client resisted the eviction. While they triumphed in the initial eviction filing due to a procedural flaw, the subsequent refiling by the landlord culminated in a staggering judgment of $7,141.92 against the tenant. The fallout from this case paints a grim picture: from the prospect of waived-off debts and complimentary accommodation, the tenant plummeted to facing a burdensome financial judgment and two eviction filings, one of which was granted.

 

The Wisconsin Tenant Union expresses deep reservations about DeHorse’s modus operandi. A fundamental issue is his apparent disregard for the long-term implications for his clients, especially post-eviction. His excessive and often unnecessary litigation not only inflates attorney fees but also indirectly exacerbates the financial burden on tenants, who bear the brunt of these escalated costs in the form of rent increases.

In conclusion, while Attorney David Samuel DeHorse might have carved a niche for himself in the legal landscape, the long-term ramifications of his actions on his clients, and the tenant community at large, are hard to ignore. It’s essential to tread with caution when considering Attorney DeHorse.