Be aware of positive ratings/comments on this site that may be not be genuine in an attempt to boost ratings. This attorney was supplied thru PrePaid Legal Services to provide representation in a lawsuit where a company had continued to bill a client for services, but had not complied with their contract and continually overcharged for services; as such, their bill was not paid; they then sued for collection plus interest. Dalayanis initially advised that the municipal court was likely to partially rule in their favor, but the satisfactory result could come in an appeals court. He charged upfront fixed fees for representation in both courts; then after being paid, refused to attend a court-ordered summary hearing in the lower court because he said he had not been paid to do such, but he actually did show up, only to ask the judge at that point to allow him to withdraw from the case. He then walked out of the commencement of the hearing with an inappropriate smart-ass remark to his client and left his client to defend himself without legal representation in front of the opposing attorney and judge! (He had never offered to bill his client for this representation if he felt he was not otherwise obligated to attend the hearing; yet his client had previously paid him immediately upfront for every dollar he had asked for prior to this, so therefore he had little reason to think that he would not be paid.) This attorney takes an approach to business that benefits him financially by being paid upfront and choosing where/when he wants to provide representation, possibly at the expense of his client, who by this approach has little control of the continuity of service or quality of representation; Dalayanis failed to completely research matters of importance to his client, and therefore did not argue case history properly, but he is a sharp-witted individual who puts on a flambouyant show in the courtroom that can work well as a quick get-in, get-out concept. However, in this approach, a judge who listens for substantive, supported argument, if finding little, may rule adversely. Attempted repeated communication to Dalayanis through his office or voicemail was poor; either inadequate or non-responsive; he does not communicate via email. Dalayanis lost the cases due to insufficient research and lack of follow-through with his client, probably resulting in ineffective argument. If you need an attorney for a quick hearing on a simple matter, this attorney may be fine, but if you need continued representation over the long term, where effective client communication, details and research are important, look elsewhere.
