James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse in Philadelphia
PHILADELPHIA – A suspended lawyer who sued an unhappy client over online reviews could be on the hook for the legal fees the case generated.
Attorneys for Kris Estrada on Tuesday filed a motion in Philadelphia federal court seeking to have Joseph Lento’s Lento Law Group pay more than $108,000 for bringing a defamation lawsuit. Estrada bashed the firm on more than a dozen sites about its representation of him in university disciplinary and criminal matters in Washington D.C., writing he was ignored while his D.C. lawyer missed three court dates.
“Further, the Lento Law Group published a news article about my case on their website without my permission,” Estrada wrote. “It’s frustrating because I trusted them to be experienced in student defense, but they proved the opposite to me based on their lack of organization in my opinion. They refused to issue any refund of the $15,000 and failed to answer formal emails sent to them asking for such refunds when confronted with the DC Rules of Professional Conduct.”
In July, Philadelphia federal judge Mia Roberts Perez tossed the defamation case against Estrada. His reviews were protected by a 2024 Pennsylvania law, known generally as an anti-SLAPP law, which protects defendants who exercise their free-speech rights from litigation. SLAPP stands for strategic lawsuits against public participation.
Because of this law, Roberts wrote that Estrada is entitled to his attorneys fees and other costs. Lento has filed at least 10 other defamation cases in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and he has faced disciplinary action in several states.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2024 suspended him from the practice of law for five years for various reasons, including telling a client he could get a criminal record expunged in six-to-nine months though state law had a five-year waiting period, failing to ensure matters filed by a fired lawyer were handled and having an inexperienced lawyer file a lawsuit that had already been dismissed once, leading to sanctions.
His license to practice in Virginia was revoked in May 2025 after his firm retained a client there without an attorney to work on the case then retaining $15,000 for more than a year, and Lento has been suspended in New Jersey for two years.
In the case against Estrada, Perez found that Lento failed to show anything in the reviews was false. Lento instead argued they were misleading because they never explained the reasons for the delays in Estrada’s proceedings.
“Lento Law commenced a cause of action based on protected public expression,” Perez wrote. “Estrada asserts his online reviews of Lento Law were protected public expression because they address the professionalism and ethics of lawyers. Estrada demonstrates the importance of these issues to the community by showing that state disciplinary boards publicize opinions regarding lawyers’ suspensions and reinstatements from the state Bar.”
