dr. Dobos István attorney - Budapest Váci út 18 Westpoint Office Center 5

In the recovery of the debts of our construction company dr. István Dobos lawyer and his team. Most of the cases have been resolved through out-of-court settlement (liquidation). A lawsuit was successfully completed in 1.5 years. I am satisfied with the service, I found the fixed basic fee + success fee scheme good. Thanks!

I entrusted Dr. István Dobos with a real estate liability law. He acted accurately, efficiently and quickly in the course of his work. His proceedings led to a short-term, out-of-court success.

I wholeheartedly recommend Dr. István Dobos, I managed to put an end to my case, which has been going on for 12 years. Thank you again for your high quality work.

We have entrusted the law firm with real estate matters. Everything went well with the administration. They are kind, extremely thorough and helpful. I can heartily recommend Mr. Lawyer, his colleagues and his team!

Always reliable, accurate, precise legal advice and representation! They provide full and thorough information and go around the matter from all possible sides. They are extremely efficient and provide excellent results. I am also extremely satisfied with their service in connection with my corporate and private affairs.

For many years, Dr. István Dobos and his team have been providing the highest possible level of legal advice on issues concerning Hungarian and EU law. Their attitudes, dedication, short reaction times and the provision of information to the layman in an understandable way always reflect the professionalism that is unfortunately found less and less in today's world. I am maximally satisfied with them, so I recommend them in color.

I was represented by a court in a simple case (during the soaked radiator replacement above me, which was done without precautions, 2 months after the discharge period. They admitted in writing but did not want to pay). We won 1.5 out of 4 demands. We lost two points due to a seemingly amateurish mistake. Claims were submitted on an incorrect basis. They wanted to account for the severance (which was necessary to supervise the work) as damage. At a preliminary hearing, they said it was no problem that it was paid leave, they did not argue at the trial. According to the court, the material damage did not occur, therefore it cannot be accounted for as damage, possibly as damages (I feel the court's argument is justified). Another point is the reimbursement of pre-litigation legal costs, which was also intended to be recognized as damages. According to the court, it was not eligible for damages, litigation costs would have been considered admissible and not a separate claim. It can also be accounted for as a separate claim under the article sent by Mr. Attorney, but the article mentions it as a cost and not as damage.