On the phone: Orson “OJ” Elrington

Attorney Says Claim Against Him is Driven by Greed


News Five contacted attorney Orson Elrington for a response to the claim being brought against him.  While Elrington told us that the matter is before the court, he did mention that the matter was initially taken on as a pro bono case which he believed was a landmark case for gender equality.  He explains what created the disagreement with his former client.


On the phone: Orson “OJ” Elrington, Attorney-at-law

“We effectively did the matter almost on a pro bono basis, on a contingent basis because the person said they essentially had no money to bring this claim.  But I often tell people that I went to law school not to gain any money but because I want to do what is just and what is right for people.  So what it is essentially is that we brought a claim on behalf of Dozieh [Ifeanyichineke] based on the fact that a provision in the Social Security Act discriminated against men.  Effectively, a provision in the Social Security Act treated men differently than it treated women.  It had a higher threshold where there were persons where their wife would have died, were treated differently than a woman if their husband had died.  And so, we thought that the matter had very good merit and therefore we took the matter to the court on behalf of Dozieh.  However, when the date that the matter was supposed to go before the court, Dozieh contacted us and effectively said that how he no longer wants to accept what he had already accepted because he discussed with his family.  That is the crux of it.  We informed Mr. Dozieh that that is simply not something that we can do.  We informed him that the matter was completed, that we had entered into a consent agreement based on his instructions and, therefore, we could not simply just go back and say we no longer want to accept what he had already accepted.  And so, that is where the issue lies.  We thereafter told him that he could provide us with his banking information and he subsequently said that he wanted not only the sums which the Social Security had settled on, but he also wanted for us to surrender what would have been our agreed portion and so for me it seems and I believe it is nothing more than greed.”

Facebook Comments

Share With: