Court Dismisses Lento Law Group’s Defamation Suit Against Former Client

In July 2026, a Pennsylvania federal court dismissed Lento Law Group’s defamation suit against ex-client Estrada.

In July 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissed a defamation lawsuit brought by Lento Law Group PC against Ana Estrada, a former client who posted critical online reviews of the firm. Estrada's reviews alleged poor communication, unprofessional behavior, and ethical lapses. The court found these statements constituted protected opinion or true statements, failing to meet the legal standard for defamation under Pennsylvania law. Judge Mia Roberts Perez's opinion emphasized this distinction.

The court’s decision was significantly influenced by the disciplinary background of Joseph D. Lento, owner of Lento Law Group. Lento's professional conduct has been called into question across several jurisdictions. In November 2024, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court suspended him for five years, citing "serious professional misconduct" including a "lack of genuine concern for clients". The suspension order detailed failures in client communication and ethical practices.

Further, Lento faced a two-year suspension imposed by the New Jersey Bar in April 2026 for violating rules of professional conduct, and a separate suspension by the Virginia State Bar in June 2025. The Virginia disciplinary action addressed incompetence, lack of diligence, and charging unreasonable fees, which raised concerns about his ability to competently serve clients there. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s April 2026 referral of Lento to the Disciplinary Board also noted possible unauthorized practice of law during his suspension period, a serious professional breach.

These cumulative disciplinary findings affected the court's view of the libel suit. By contextualizing Estrada's negative feedback against Lento's extensive history, the court underscored how claims against client reviews may falter where attorney misconduct exists. The ruling highlights the need for law firms to carefully assess ethical and reputational risks before litigating against critics. It also signals to legal professionals the importance of maintaining compliance to avoid complicating client disputes through public litigation.