Title: In re Weaver.
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 107313
State: Kansas
Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court
Date: July 13, 2012

1 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS 
 
No.  107,313 
 
In the Matter of TRACY D. WEAVER, 
Respondent. 
 
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING IN DISCIPLINE 
 
Original proceeding in discipline. Opinion filed July 13, 2012. Disbarment. 
 
Kimberly L. Knoll, Deputy Disciplinary Administrator, argued the cause, and Stanton A. Hazlett, 
Disciplinary Administrator, was on the formal complaint for the petitioner. 
 
John J. Ambrosio, of Ambrosio & Ambrosio, Chtd., Topeka, argued the cause, and Tracy D. 
Weaver, respondent, argued the cause pro se. 
 
Per Curiam: This is an original proceeding in discipline filed by the office of the 
Disciplinary Administrator against the respondent, Tracy D. Weaver, of Overland Park, 
an attorney admitted to the practice of law in Kansas in 1999. 
 
 
On January 27, 2011, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator filed a formal 
complaint against the respondent alleging violations of the Kansas Rules of Professional 
Conduct (KRPC). The respondent filed his answer on February 18, 2011, and 
subsequently consented to an amended formal complaint. On July 26, 2010, the 
respondent voluntarily agreed to the temporary suspension of his license to practice law.  
 
A panel of the Kansas Board for Discipline of Attorneys conducted a hearing on 
June 7, 2011, where the respondent was personally present and was represented by 
counsel. Following the presentation of evidence, the hearing panel determined that 
respondent had violated KRPC 1.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 433) (diligence); 1.4(a) 
2 
 
(2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 452) (communication); 1.15(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 519) 
(safekeeping property); 1.16(d) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 535) (termination of 
representation); 4.1(a) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 581) (truthfulness in statements to 
others); 5.3 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 591) (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer 
assistants); 5.4 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 593) (professional independence of a lawyer); 
5.5(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 594) (unauthorized practice of law); 7.1 (2011 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 602) (communications concerning a lawyer's services); 8.1(b) (2011 Kan. Ct. 
R. Annot. 609) (failure to respond to lawful demand for information from disciplinary 
authority); and 8.4(c) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 618) (engaging in conduct involving 
misrepresentation) and (g) (engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on lawyer's fitness 
to practice law). 
 
Upon conclusion of the hearing, the panel made the following findings of fact and 
conclusions of law, together with its recommendation to this court: 
 
"FINDINGS OF FACT 
 
. . . . 
 
"6. 
On October 5, 1999, the Kansas Supreme Court admitted the Respondent 
to the practice of law in the State of Kansas. During the pendency of the disciplinary 
case, the Respondent agreed to a temporary suspension and on July 26, 2010, the Kansas 
Supreme Court entered an order of temporary suspension of the Respondent's license to 
practice law. The Respondent is not licensed to practice law in any other state. 
 
"7. 
The Respondent established a law practice, named Weaver Law Firm, 
Inc. [Footnote:  The Respondent's law firm was also referred to as the Weaver Law 
Group, the Weaver Law Firm, LLC, and the Law Depot.] 
 
"8. 
In approximately 2007, the housing market in California and across the 
United States declined and many homeowners were unable to continue to make their 
3 
 
mortgage payments. A number of companies were formed to provide loan modifications 
for home owners as a result of the housing market decline. 
 
"9. 
Through his law practice, the Respondent began doing business as Loss 
Mitigation Legal Network (hereinafter 'LMLN') to modify home mortgage loans nation-
wide. The Respondent's business plan for LMLN included a plan to establish a nation-
wide network of lawyers. 
 
"10. 
While the Respondent had some experience in real estate transactions, a 
bachelor's degree in finance and economics, a juris doctor degree, and a master's degree 
in business administration, the Respondent did not have any specific education, training, 
or experience in modifying home mortgages. 
 
"11. 
The Respondent became associated with eBizware, a company owned by 
Mark DeFoor and Mike Burns, non-lawyers. Mr. DeFoor and Mr. Burns were in the 
business of loan modification, had developed loan modification software, and had hired 
employees who were performing loan modifications. 
 
"12. 
In addition to their loan modification business, Mr. DeFoor and Mr. 
Burns had other businesses. The Weaver Law Firm, LMLN, eBizware, and Mr. DeFoor 
and Mr. Burns' other businesses were all physically located in the same office space. 
 
"13. 
The Respondent prepared a variety of documents, describing the services 
that LMLN provided. In a document titled, 'Mortgage Assistance Program' on LMLN's 
stationary, the Respondent stated: 
 
 
'Mortgage Assistance Program 
 
'Who We Are 
'The Loss Mitigation Legal Network is a Law Firm specializing in loss 
mitigation and headquartered in Overland Park, KS. We specialize in 
assisting consumers in all 50 states attain an affordable mortgage 
payment or retain their homes by means of the loss mitigation process. 
We are comprised of a nationwide network of attorneys which 
4 
 
oversee your loss mitigation case. Our mission is to SAVE THE 
AMERICAN DREAM by negotiating affordable mortgage payments or 
repayment plans so that our clients can continue to live in their homes 
with a reasonable payment. We have rescued home owners from 
foreclosure, adjustable mortgages, lack of equity and delinquent 
payments. Our volume and proven track record gives us credibility with 
your lender, and our volume of clients gives us leverage. 
 
'Established Contacts 
'Our contract processors work daily with key negotiators and decision 
makers at lending institutions across the country on a daily basis. They 
speak the language and understand what it takes to break through the 
bureaucracy so that you can succeed. Our experience and strategic 
relationships with over 1000 lending institutions allow us to out-perform 
our competition. We will use our experience and relationships to your 
advantage through aggressive negotiations. We are committed to 
providing excellent customer service and fast closings. 
 
'Technology 
'Loss Mitigation Legal Network is committed to technology and 
developing better solutions to assist our clients throughout the 
negotiation process. We provide all of our clients with access to our 
"back office" allowing them to monitor their individual account online. 
Once you sign up for our services you will receive your unique username 
and password granting you access to real time status updates, progress 
reports, and comment logs. 
 
'Our Goal Is Solely To Assist You 
'We have no interest in owning your home or prospering from your 
misfortune. As professionals who understand the mortgage industry from 
years of experience, we know how to help. Put our expertise into action 
and you could become another one of our countless satisfied clients. Let 
our caring staff help you! If we are unable to help you, we may have 
other solutions that will. We all know life is unpredictable, and 
5 
 
circumstances often arise that can prevent you from making your 
mortgage payments. Even hard-working people can encounter 
unforeseen situations which may affect their ability to pay their mortgage 
in a timely manner. Many issues can be contributing factors such as 
temporary job loss, medical illness or injury, marital difficulties, 
unforeseen repairs or high utility rates, tenant problems, or even a death 
in the family. Just one of these situations can have a direct bearing on 
making home mortgage payments. Don't Let Time Run Out! 
 
'What Comes Next 
'Take some time to review our Mortgage Assistance Program, and if you 
are interested in moving forward please complete, sign, and initial where 
indicated, and provide ALL of the documentation requested. Our goal is 
to negotiate with your lender as much as possible, and in order to 
accomplish this we need to gather as much information as possible. 
Some examples of information that we are interested in providing 
include, but are not limited to:  financial hardships, medical bills, loss of 
job, decrease in home value, adjustable mortgage payments increasing, 
home repairs needed, delinquent property taxes, etc. Once we receive 
your commitment to enroll in the program you will be engaged by an 
attorney in your state to oversee the entire process. Your file will be 
reviewed by our underwriting department and then our contract 
processors will package properly and submitted [sic] to our contacts at 
the lender. You will be provided regular updates, and can access your 
account online at anytime. Please complete all of the disclosures 
included and provide all documentation requested on the Documentation 
Checklist. Fax everything back to the number listed on the fax cover 
sheet. If you have any questions during the process please log in to your 
account for updates at www.lossmitigationlegalnetwork.com. If you still 
have questions please feel free to contact your LM Consultant. E-mail 
usually receives the fastest response.' 
 
"14. 
Despite the Respondent's statement in his literature, LMLN did not have 
a network of attorneys across the country. In fact, the Respondent and LMLN associated 
6 
 
with only one other attorney, a California attorney, Kent Vanderschuit. The Respondent's 
association with Mr. Vanderschuit lasted for only a portion of the time LMLN was in 
business. 
 
"15. 
Other than becoming associated with Mr. Vanderschuit for a period of 
time, the Respondent's attempt at developing a nation-wide network of attorneys 
consisted of running an advertisement for attorneys and maintaining a list of attorneys 
who responded to the ad. However, the Respondent did not contact the attorneys who 
responded to the ad. The Respondent explained that if a client needed an attorney in 
another state, he would find an attorney. 
 
"16. 
The Respondent's statement that he had a nation-wide network of 
attorneys and the Respondent's statement that the clients would be 'engaged' by an 
attorney in their state are false statements. 
 
"17. 
Additionally, the Respondent prepared and distributed a document which 
provides: 
 
'The Weaver Law Firm, Inc., dba the Loss Mitigation Legal 
Network, is a law firm specializing in consumer financial legal services. 
We specialize in assisting consumers in all 50 states to attain a solution 
to their current situation. We are not a cookie cutter provider of 
services, but a law firm dedicated to providing quality legal services 
for your needs in areas such as:  bankruptcy, debt settlement, 
foreclosure advice, loan modification, lender disputes, etc. 
 
'I appreciate your interest in our services and look forward to 
working with you in the near future. By completing the following 
information requests, you acknowledge that our office will be contacting 
you to discuss your particular needs and help you determine an 
appropriate course of action. 
 
7 
 
'Regards, 
'Tracy Weaver, JD/MBA 
'Managing Director' 
 
(Emphasis added.) The Respondent admitted that the statement emphasized above is a 
false statement as he had no intention of providing those legal services. 
 
"18. 
The Respondent prepared and distributed another document which 
provides: 
 
'Loss Mitigation Legal Network (LMLN) 
• 
Network of Attorneys across the country—specializing in 
Consumer Finance 
• 
Focused on assisting clients who are overwhelmed with debt or 
have experienced a financial hardship which has hindered their 
ability to meet financial obligations 
• 
Pledge to review each case independently to recommend the best 
suited solution for each client 
 
'Services 
• 
Forensic Loan Audit Recourse 
• 
Loss Mitigation 
• 
Debt Settlement 
• 
Bankruptcy 
• 
Credit Repair 
 
'Technology 
• 
Best-in-Class transaction and workflow software licensed by 
eBizware.com 
• 
Commitment to continuous improvement through process 
refinements and industry leading technology' 
 
8 
 
"19. 
The Respondent's two selling points for his loan modification business 
were (1) the involvement of a licensed attorney and (2) a guaranteed refund. LMLN's 
refund agreement provided: 
 
'LMLN, INC. pledges to work diligently to secure a home loan resolution 
for our valued clients. We guarantee 100% Refund [sic] of our collected 
Services Fees, if after underwriting, processing, and negotiating with 
your lender on your behalf; we are unable to secure resolution as defined 
by obtaining a lender agreement for any of the following: 
 
• 
Loan Modification  
• 
Forbearance Agreement 
• 
Reinstatement 
• 
Repayment Plan 
• 
Loan Restructure 
• 
Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure 
• 
Negotiating the Principal Balance/Delinquent Debt' 
 
"20. 
The Respondent, through eBizware, solicited the services of agents 
working through Home Loan Preservation (hereinafter 'HLP') to market loan 
modifications to California residents. 
 
"21. 
The Respondent charged loan modification clients an attorney fee 
ranging from $1,900.00 to $3,495.00 for each loan modification. Of the fee, the 
Respondent retained $150.00 and transferred the remainder of the fee to eBizware. The 
Respondent paid Mr. Vanderschuit $50 of the $150 retained by the Respondent for each 
of the loan modification files that Mr. Vanderschuit reviewed. The HLP agents were paid 
$950.00 for each file by eBizware from funds transferred from the Respondent's accounts 
to eBizware's accounts. 
 
"22. 
From November, 2008, through June, 2009, the Respondent did not have 
an attorney trust account. The Respondent deposited unearned fees, including the 
attorney fees generated by the loan modification business, during that time period, into 
his attorney operating account, commingling his money with clients' money. 
9 
 
 
"23. 
Thereafter, the Respondent opened a trust account. After that time, the 
Respondent deposited unearned fees, including attorney fees generated by the loan 
modification business, into his attorney trust account. 
 
"24. 
After the Respondent deposited the loan modification fees into his 
account, an employee of eBizware instructed the Respondent to transfer certain amounts 
of the fees into eBizware's accounts. The Respondent did not have any access to or 
control of the fees once the fees were transferred to eBizware's accounts. 
 
"25. 
Between November, 2008, and September, 2009, LMLN had 
approximately 1,200 loan modification clients. Additionally during that same time 
period, over $1,000,000.00 of client money was transferred out of the Respondent's 
accounts into eBizware's accounts, while the Respondent retained approximately 
$100,000.00. 
 
"26. 
Many of the home loan mortgages that the Respondent attempted to 
modify were for California clients regarding California real estate. In addition to 
attempting to modify loans for property located in California, the Respondent also 
attempted to modify loans for property located in Arizona, Nevada, Texas, Washington, 
Washington, D.C., and other states. 
 
"27. 
The Respondent believed that he could perform legal services outside the 
State of Kansas under a California attorney exception provision to avoid the regulatory 
requirements, if the services he provided were not legal services. The Respondent's belief 
was misplaced. 
 
"28. 
Specific California code provisions are relevant to the instant case. First, 
Cal. Bus. & Pro. Code § 10131 provides a definition of 'real estate broker.' 
 
'A real estate broker within the meaning of this part is a person 
who, for a compensation or in expectation of a compensation, regardless 
of the form or time of payment, does or negotiates to do one or more of 
the following acts for another or others: 
10 
 
. . . . 
 
(d) 
Solicits borrowers or lenders for or negotiates loans or 
collects payments or performs services for borrowers or lenders or note 
owners in connection with loans secured directly or collaterally by liens 
on real property or on a business opportunity.' 
  
"29. 
Next, Cal. Bus. & Pro. Code § 10131.1 expands the definition of 'real 
estate broker' to include the following: 
 
'(a) 
A real estate broker within the meaning of this part is 
also a person who engages as a principal in the business of making loans 
or buying from, selling to, or exchanging with the public, real property 
sales contracts or promissory notes secured directly or collaterally by 
liens on real property, or who makes agreements with the public for the 
collection of payments or for the performance of services in connection 
with real property sales contracts or promissory notes secured directly or 
collaterally by liens on real property.' 
 
"30. 
Cal. Bus. & Pro. Code § 10133(a) provides that certain individuals, who 
are not real estate brokers, are also allowed to perform acts described in § 10131, 'The 
acts described in Section 10131 are not acts for which a real estate license is required if 
performed by . . . (3) [a]n attorney at law in rendering legal services to a client.' While the 
Respondent never intended to provide the loan modification clients with any legal advice 
or legal services, he did intend to form an attorney/client relationship. However, in order 
to fall within the exemption of Cal. Bus. & Pro. Code § 10133(a)(3), he would have to be 
'rendering legal services to a client. 
 
"31. 
The attorney exemption does not apply to lawyers who are doing 
business as a loan modification company, rather, the attorney exemption applies only for 
the benefit of lawyers who were rendering legal services in their own law practice. An 
attorney who is engaged in a business assisting clients with loan modifications in 
California must also be a licensed real estate broker. 
 
11 
 
"32. 
Finally, Cal. Bus. & Pro. Code § 10133.1 provides, in pertinent part, as 
follows: 
'(a) 
Subdivision (d) and (e) of Section 10131 . . . do not 
apply to any of the following: 
. . . .  
(5) 
Any person licensed to practice law in this state, not 
actively and principally engaged in the business of negotiating loans 
secured by real property, when that person renders services in the course 
of his or her practice as an attorney at law, and the disbursements of that 
person, whether paid by the borrower or other person, are not charges or 
costs and expenses regulated by or subject to the limitations of Article 7 
(commencing with Section 10240), and the fees and disbursements are 
not shared, directly or indirectly, with the person negotiating the loan or 
the lender.' 
 
"33. 
The Respondent interpreted the California code provisions to 
allow him to perform the work of a real estate broker without a California real 
estate license or without the assistance of a licensed California attorney. 
 
"34. 
However, the Respondent's interpretation was misplaced. In order to 
assist clients with loan modifications in California, one must either be licensed to practice 
law in California or a licensed real estate broker in California. The Respondent was 
neither. 
 
"35. 
Through the Respondent, LMLN entered into a contract with the loan 
modification clients. The first client contract contained the following relevant provisions: 
 
'The undersigned homeowner ("Homeowner", refers to one or more) 
engaged the Law Depot, Inc., a law firm dba the Loss Mitigation Legal 
Network, and its appointees (referred to as "LMLN"), to act as 
Homeowner's agent in assisting homeowner with problems resulting 
from mortgage delinquency and/or foreclosure situations. This 
engagement is for participation in a lawyer supervised loss mitigation 
program with LMLN ("Program"). You understand that Florida residents 
12 
 
will be engaged exclusively by a practicing attorney located in Florida. 
LMLN agrees to act as such agent faithfully and to the best of its ability, 
but in no way guarantee the success of its efforts to avoid the possible 
loss of the mortgagee's home . . . . 
. . . .  
'CONTRACT PARTS 
'The contract for participation in the loss mitigation program includes 
this document as well as the Notice of Cancellation, Authorization Form 
and Financial Worksheet. It will become effective as of the date it is 
executed by you (and or your spouse if you are married as well as any 
other co-signor on the loan) and approved by a lawyer admitted to 
practice in your state of residence. LMLN will not be bound until this 
contract and you have been approved by a lawyer admitted to practice in 
your state of residence for participation in the Program and you have 
paid the Non Refundable Evaluation Fee described below. 
'LAWYER EVALUATION AND ACCEPTANCE IS REQUIRED 
You fully understand and agree that LMLN will not accept you as a 
client until it completes an evaluation which has been signed off and 
reviewed by a lawyer admitted to practice in your state of residence. 
. . . . 
'SCOPE: NO TAX OR BANKRUPTCY ADVICE 
'You are engaging the specific legal service of LMLN to provide attorney 
oversight of your loss mitigation case. Homeowner understands and 
acknowledges having been informed that LMLN is not being retained for 
any legal advice nor does LMLN screen Homeowner's situation for a 
need for legal advice. LMLN encourages Homeowner to make an 
independent analysis about whether to seek legal counsel as may be 
necessary. 
. . . .  
'FEES & CHARGES AND USE OF NON-LAWYERS 
'Homeowners shall pay to LMLN the TOTAL FEE OF . . . to be held in 
client Trust account. Fees shall be earned and deducted from the Trust 
account per the following schedule: 
. . . . 
13 
 
'You further understand that even though LMLN is a law firm, loss 
mitigation services may be provided by agents and subcontractors who 
are not lawyers, but who will operate under supervision of a lawyer 
licensed to practice in your state of residence and their fees and costs will 
be paid as services are rendered. You acknowledge that anyone not a 
lawyer will operate pursuant to written guidelines and there will be no 
deviation from those guidelines without the express authorization of a 
lawyer licensed to practice in your state of residence. 
. . . .  
'ADDENDUM 
'Client shall receive FULL REFUND IF LMLN is unable to provide 
ANY solution described in this contract. Client understands that LMLN 
cannot guarantee which solution will be offered. Additionally, if LMLN 
is unable to provide a solution described in this contract a short-sale may 
be offered. A refund will not be granted if client accepts a short-sale 
offer.' 
 
"36. 
The advance fees paid by LMLN's California clients under this contract 
were in violation of California law. 
 
"37. 
Other than Mr. Vanderschuit, no lawyer licensed to practice in the 
client's state of residence participated in the loan modification process for LMLN. Thus, 
for all of the loan modification cases that arose from states other than California, no 
lawyer licensed to practice in the client's state of residence reviewed or approved the 
contracts. Further, it is unclear whether Mr. Vanderschuit ever reviewed or approved the 
contracts for California clients. 
 
"38. 
When the Respondent discussed the loan modification process with 
clients, he did not insure that the clients knew that he was licensed only in Kansas and 
that his office was located in Kansas City. 
 
"39. 
At some point, Mr. Vanderschuit informed the Respondent that the 
Respondent could not do business in California without having either a licensed 
California attorney or a licensed California real estate broker working on the client files. 
14 
 
 
"40. 
On March 12, 2009, the California Department of Real Estate issued an 
order to desist and refrain to Homeloan Preservation, New Loan Solutions, Inc., Loss 
Mitigation Legal Network, LLC, Allan Mallory, Donna Porter, Eric Conner, and Dean 
Holley. All the individuals listed in the order were agents who directly or indirectly 
solicited California clients for LMLN. The order provided: 
 
'The Real Estate Commissioner of the State of California has 
caused an investigation to be conducted and is of the opinion that you 
HOMELOAN PRESERVATION, NEW LOAN SOLUTIONS, INC., 
LOSS MITIGATION LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, ALLAN MALLORY, 
DONNA PORTER, ERIC CONNER, and DEAN HOLLEY (hereinafter 
collectively referred to as "you") have violated Sections [sic] 10130 of 
the Business and Professions Code (hereinafter "the Code"). 
 
 
'1 
'At no time mentioned have HOMELOAN PRESERVATION, 
NEW LOAN SOLUTIONS, INC., OR LOSS MITIGATION LEGAL 
NETWORK, LLC been licensed by the Department of Real Estate of the 
State of California (hereinafter "Department") as a real estate broker. 
 
 
'2 
'At no time mentioned have ALLAN MALLORY, DONNA 
PORTER, and ERIC CONNER been licensed by the Department either 
as a real estate broker or a real estate salesperson. 
 
 
'3 
'At all times mentioned DEAN HOLLEY has been licensed by 
the Department as a real estate salesperson with no broker affiliation. 
 
 
'4 
'At all times mentioned, you engaged in the business of, acted in 
the capacity of, advertised, or assumed to act as a real estate broker in the 
State of California, within the meaning of Section 10131(d) of the Code, 
15 
 
including the operation and conduct of a mortgage loan brokerage 
business with the public wherein you, for or in expectation of 
compensation, for another or others, solicited lenders and borrowers 
and/or performed services for borrowers or lenders or note owners for 
loans secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property. 
 
 
'5 
'On or about February 28, 2009, in connection with the real 
estate activities described in Paragraph 4, ALLAN MALLORY on behalf 
of HOMELOAN PRESERVATION and/or LOSS MITIGATION 
LEGAL NETWORK, LLC, solicited and/or performed services for 
borrowers, in connection with loans secured directly or collaterally by 
liens on real property or on a business opportunity, for or in expectation 
of compensation. Such activities include, but are not limited to, soliciting 
individuals for loan modification services at the "Project Homeowners" 
workshop being offered at 525 North Center Street, Stockton. 
 
 
'6 
'On or about February 28, 2009, in connection with the real 
estate activities described in Paragraph 4, ERIC CONNER on behalf of 
DEAN HOLLEY and/or HOMELOAN PRESERVATION, solicited 
and/or performed services for borrowers, in connection with loans 
secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property or on a business 
opportunity, for or in expectation of compensation. Such activities 
include, but are not limited to, soliciting individuals for loan 
modification services at the "Project Homeowners" workshop being 
offered at 525 North Center Street, Stockton. 
 
 
'7 
'On or about February 28, 2009, in connection with real estate 
activities described in Paragraph 4, DONNA PORTER on behalf of 
HOMELOAN PRESERVATION and/or NEW LOAN SOLUTIONS, 
INC., solicited and/or performed services for borrowers, in connection 
with loans secured directly or collaterally by liens on real property or on 
16 
 
a business opportunity, for or in expectation of compensation. Such 
activities include, but are no [sic] limited to, soliciting individuals for 
loan modification services at the "Project Homeowners" workshop being 
offered at 525 North Center Street, Stockton. 
 
 
'8 
'In February 2009, in connection with the real estate activities 
described in Paragraph 4, DEAN HOLLEY on behalf of HOMELOAN 
PRESERVATION, solicited and/or performed services for borrowers, in 
connection with loans secured directly or collaterally by liens on real 
property or on a business opportunity, for or in expectation of 
compensation. 
 
 
'9 
'Your acts and omissions described in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 
8 violated Section 10130 of the Code. 
 
'NOW, THEREFORE, YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO 
DESIST AND REFRAIN from performing any and all acts within the 
State of California for which a real estate broker license is required, 
within the meaning of Code Section 10131 unless and until you are in 
compliance with Section 10130 of the Code.' 
 
The order to desist and refrain was served on March 14, 2009. 
 
"41. 
On March 15, 2009, the Respondent called John Van Driel, Assistant 
Chief Counsel for the California Department of Real Estate. The Respondent asked Mr. 
Van Driel to remove LMLN from the desist and refrain order. Mr. Van Driel informed 
the Respondent that in order for LMLN's name to be removed from the desist and refrain 
order, the Respondent would have to appear at a hearing and establish that LMLN did not 
violate the law as alleged in the desist and refrain order. The Respondent did not request 
a hearing and did not establish that LMLN had not violated the law as alleged in the 
desist and refrain order. 
 
17 
 
"42. 
During the telephone conversation, Mr. Van Driel informed the 
Respondent that anyone conducting real estate business in California must be licensed as 
a real estate broker and advanced fees cannot be collected in loan modification cases. 
 
"43. 
Despite its inclusion in the order, the Respondent did not believe that the 
order applied to LMLN. The Respondent stated: 
 
'My conversations focused solely around how HLP could become 
compliant with the DRE. LMLN's compliance was not in question since I 
was a law firm. LMLN was not the focal point of the Desist and Refrain, 
only an additional named party due to its inclusion on the advertising 
piece.' 
 
"44. 
Mr. Vanderschuit terminated his relationship with the Respondent 
because the State Bar of California informed Mr. Vanderschuit that the Respondent's 
business was in violation of California regulations. 
 
"45. 
Despite the inclusion of LMLN in the order to desist and refrain, the 
Respondent determined that because his company was a law firm, he was operating 
outside the purview of the California Department of Real Estate. The Respondent 
concluded that if he terminated his relationship with HLP and associated himself with 
licensed individuals, he could continue operations. 
 
"46. 
Following the issuance of the desist and refrain order, the Respondent 
made changes to his client contract. The second client contract contained the following 
relevant provisions: 
 
'The undersigned homeowner ("Homeowner", refers to one or more) 
engages the Weaver Law Firm, Inc., a law firm dba the Loss Mitigation 
Legal Network, (referred to as "LMLN"), to act as attorney in assisting 
homeowner with problems resulting from mortgage delinquency and/or 
foreclosure situations. This engagement is for participation in a lawyer 
supervised law mitigation program with LMLN (" Program"). LMLN 
engages attorneys and other professionals to assist in the loan 
18 
 
modification process in areas such as; customer service, marketing, 
document gathering and lender negotiations. LMLN agrees to act 
faithfully and to the best of its ability, but in no way guarantees the 
success of its efforts to avoid the possible loss of the mortgagee's home. 
. . . . 
'CONTRACT PARTS 
'The contract for participation in the loss mitigation Program includes 
this document as well as the Notice of Cancellation, Authorization Form 
and Financial Worksheet. It will become effective as of the date it is 
executed by you (and or your spouse if you are married as well as any 
other co-signor on the loan) and approved by licensed attorney. LMLN 
will not be bound until this contract and you have been approved by a 
licensed attorney. 
 
'LAWYER EVALUATION AND ACCEPTANCE IS REQUIRED 
'You fully understand and agree that LMLN will not accept you as a 
client until it completes an evaluation which has been signed off and 
reviewed by a licensed attorney. 
. . . .  
'LIMITED SCOPE: 
'You are engaging the specific legal service of LMLN to provide attorney 
supervision of your loan modification. Homeowner understands, has 
spoken to an attorney with our firm and acknowledges having been 
informed that LMLN is not being retained for any other legal advice, tax, 
bankruptcy or otherwise, nor does LMLN continuing screen 
Homeowner's situation for a need for other legal services outside the 
scope of services described in this agreement. 
. . . .  
'FEES & CHARGES AND USE OF NON-LAWYERS 
'Homeowner shall pay to LMLN the TOTAL RETAINER FEE OF . . . 
To be deposited in attorney Trust account. Fees shall be deducted from 
the retainer upon the commencement of services and shall be earned/non-
refundable based on the following processes and activities: 
. . . .  
19 
 
'Refund of Retained Fees Until Earned. The retained fee paid by the 
Principal is fully refundable until earned in each Phase by LMLN. If this 
agreement is terminated by the Principal before the agreed upon 
completion date and before the agreed upon next Phase of services are 
completed, the unearned retained fees will be refunded to the Principal 
within 5 business days. 
 
'You further acknowledge that even though LMLN is a law firm, portions 
of these loss mitigation services will be provided by agents and 
subcontractors who are not lawyers, but whose work will be reviewed by 
a licensed attorney and their fees and costs will be paid at the onset of 
services. You understand that anyone not a lawyer will operate pursuant 
to written guidelines and no deviation from those guidelines will be 
allowed without the express authorization of licensed attorney. 
 
'REFUND POLICY. LMLN strives to provide exemplary customer 
satisfaction while providing quality services. Our fees are "earned" in 
Phases as indicated above. Should Principal have any issue or desire to 
cancel services he/she will be entitled to any funds that have not been 
earned at such time.' 
 
"47. 
According to the Respondent, he made the changes to the client contract, 
reflected in the second contract quoted above, in an attempt to comply with the desist and 
refrain order issued in March, 2009. 
 
"48. 
Again, the advance fees paid by LMLN's California clients under this 
contract were in violation of California law. 
 
"49. 
On March 16, 2009, the Respondent wrote to Mr. Van Driel. The 
Respondent stated: 
 
'Thanks for your time tonight. I greatly appreciate your willingness to 
talk and work with me through these issues. I had some discussions with 
20 
 
the team over at HLP and wanted to verify with you that the following 
scenario would be acceptable to the DRE: 
 
1. 
In some manner, acquisition/dba/etc, HLP becomes a 
licensed broker and obtains an AFA 
 
2. 
HLP affiliates/sale people continue to solicit consumers 
in the same manner. NOTE: These "sales" people will not hold a license, 
but simply work under the broker. (is this ok?) 
 
3. 
Per the AFA, HLP is now engaging the consumer and 
holding funds in trust accounts and legal services will be retained 
separately/directly with local counsel should the client choose. 
 
'I think turning this around in this manner cleans up the legal piece as 
well, which I am all too happy to do :) 
 
'Can we chat in the morning (Tue) to get your thoughts? I am just trying 
to get moving in the right direction asap . . . .' 
 
"50. 
On March 17, 2009, Mr. Van Driel responded to the Respondent's 
message. Mr. Van Driel stated: 
 
'In answer to your questions below. 
 
1. 
Licenses are issued by DRE to individuals and 
corporations. The applications and information concerning licensing can 
be obtained on the DRE website—www.dre.ca.gov. I don't know what 
"AFA" means. 
 
2. 
If HLP becomes licensed as a corporate real estate 
broker, it would have one individual real estate broker assigned to be its 
"designated officer" on DRE records. That person would be responsible 
for assuring that both HLP and its agents were compliant with the Real 
21 
 
Estate Law (California Business & Professions Code sec. 10000, et seq.) 
and the Commissioner's Regulations (Title 10 California Code of 
Regulations). The DRE website has a downloadable version of the law 
and regulations. HLP's affiliates or agents would not be able to solicit 
consumers to sign up for loan modification services unless they are also 
licensed as real estate salespersons (or real estate brokers working for a 
real estate corporation or for another real estate broker). Those licensed 
agents of HLP would be supervised by HLP's designated officer/broker. 
Agents can not "simply work under the broker" without also being 
licensed by DRE. 
 
3. 
If HLP were properly licensed in California by the DRE, 
it could solicit consumers by its licensed agents (licensed real estate 
salespersons) to provide loan modification services for that consumer. If 
HLP has an "advance fee agreement" for which the DRE has issued a "no 
objection" letter, it could claim and collect an advance fee from those 
consumers, subject to the rules on how to handle advance fees and trust 
funds, AS LONG AS A NOTICE OF DEFAULT HAS NOT YET BEEN 
RECORDED. Once a NOD has been recorded, a real estate licensee can 
not charge or collect an advance fee for any reason. When HLP begins its 
association with a California licensed attorney on behalf of the consumer 
who has already paid the advance fee, problems arise. Rather than try to 
spell out all of those potential issues, I will simply state that attorneys 
can not legally share legal fees with non-lawyers in California; or use 
non-lawyers to provide legal services. In our experience, one or the other 
is usually the case. I will advise you, however, that there will be a 
"webinar" put on by the California State Bar in which Wayne Bell, who 
was recently with me when we spoke on the phone yesterday, will 
participate. . . . 
 
'It might be helpful for you to listen to this webinar. I believe the 
connection between attorneys and real estate licensees or unlicensed 
persons will be discussed in detail.' 
 
22 
 
"51. 
On March 17, 2009, the Respondent forwarded a memo to 'all affiliates 
and agents.' The memo provided as follows: 
 
'As you are aware, the Loss Mitigation Legal Network (LMLN) 
continuously strives to offer "best in class" services and to comply fully 
with all Federal and State guidelines, laws and regulations. Under this 
important management objective, we work constantly to improve our 
compliance procedures, controls and visibility. As part of our process of 
continuous improvement, we recently held detailed discussions with the 
California Department of Real Estate (DRE) regarding our business 
model for obtaining and providing 3rd party Loan Modification services 
in the State of California. These discussions have resulted in several 
compliance suggestions by the DRE that will serve to bolster our overall 
regulatory compliance and enhance the quality of service that we all 
work hard to deliver. 
 
'We have chosen to act on the DRE's recommendations 
immediately and we are currently in the process of adding these 
compliance enhancements to our end-to-end service model. We expect to 
have these improvements implemented within 7 business days (by 
3/24/09). During this timeframe (EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY) we 
are requiring all Affiliates to suspend from soliciting or adding any 
new customers from California, or from other states regarding 
property within California. It is imperative that this request is adhered 
to. Customers who have already been submitted for service will 
continue to receive services in accordance with our normal operating 
procedures. 
 
'Once these changes are in place, we will be able to resume new 
business in California with greater confidence that we are meeting and 
exceeding all compliance guidelines. Additional information will be 
provided to you in the near future regarding these changes to the process. 
 
23 
 
'Please feel free to call or email me with any questions or 
concerns.' 
 
'Best Regards, 
'Tracy Weaver 
'Loss Mitigation Legal Network' 
 
"52. 
On March 18, 2009, the Respondent listened to a seminar put on by the 
State Bar of California in order to understand the legal requirements of completing loan 
modifications in California. Mark Mellor presented material during the seminar held over 
the Internet that the Respondent attended. Additionally, on March 20, 2009, the 
Respondent met with Mr. Mellor by telephone for an hour regarding proper business 
models in the loan modification business. 
 
"53. 
On March 26, 2009, the Respondent informed Mr. Van Driel that he was 
setting up an office in California and hiring California attorneys. The Respondent did not 
set up a California office, nor did he hire California attorneys, other than Mr. 
Vanderschuit. Further, by this time, Mr. Vanderschuit had already terminated his 
relationship with the Respondent. 
 
"54. 
After the order to desist and refrain was issued, the Respondent 
contracted directly with the HLP agents. The Respondent failed to verify that the agents 
were properly licensed with the California Department of Real Estate. Verifying whether 
a person is a licensed real estate broker in California is a simple matter. The California 
Department of Real Estate has a searchable listing of all licensed real estate brokers on 
the Internet. Additionally, the Respondent directed the HLP agents to not reveal that they 
were marketing services of LMLN or were affiliated with LMLN. 
 
"55. 
After the California Department of Real Estate issued the desist and 
refrain order, the Respondent moved the attorney review process 'in-house.' The 
Respondent did not attempt to locate local counsel to review any loan modification cases. 
Rather, the Respondent hired a suspended Kansas attorney, Darrin Patterson, and a 
Missouri attorney, Kendra White, to work in LMLN's Kansas office, reviewing loan 
modification cases. Additionally, the Respondent contracted with Kansas attorney, Jim 
24 
 
Arnett. Despite the status of Mr. Patterson's license to practice law in the State of Kansas, 
the Respondent allowed Mr. Patterson to meet with clients. 
 
"56. 
At no time, did the Respondent inform his clients that he did not have a 
nation-wide network of attorneys. 
 
"57. 
In July and August, 2009, and months after the desist and refrain order 
was issued, the Respondent held a sales contest in California to generate more clients. 
 
"58. 
On July 22, 2009, the Respondent sent an electronic mail message to 'All 
LMLN Professionals.' In the message, the Respondent stated: 
 
'Thanks again for the exceptionally good response to our July-August 
program/contest. We look forward to working with you and to your 
success. 
 
'Additionally, I just wanted to drop you a note to cover a few quick 
items: 
 
1. 
WE ARE HERE TO STAY. There appears to be some 
misinformation out there that we may be calling it quits. THIS IS 
ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT. We are in for the long haul for you and 
your clients, and we will remain an industry leader by providing 
excellent customer service, solid technology enablement and proven 
results. 
 
2. 
WE ARE READY FOR YOUR BUSINESS. Please Log into 
www.lossmitigationlegalnetwork.com (In the professional section - 24/7 
to access our system free of charge.  
 
3. 
WE WANT TO MAKE YOU SUCCESSFUL. We know Loss 
Mitigation and Debt Settlement is an ancillary sale to your customer 
base, we treat each customer as our own. 
 
25 
 
4. 
WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANKS. We feel as though we 
have two customers, You and the Client! Keep the deals coming, we 
appreciate it. 
 
'Keep up the good work and let us know if there is anything we can do to 
help you and your clients. 
 
'Sincerely, 
'Tracy Weaver' 
 
"59. 
Two days later, on July 24, 2009, the Respondent sent the following 
message to 'LMLN Users.' 
 
'Good morning LMLN Users. 
 
'This morning we learned that Home Loan Preservation is in a joint 
venture with Green Credit and has subsequently removed the LMLN 
Login from their website. 
 
'In light of this development, please be assured of the following: 
 
- LMLN is committed to working hard on all submitted and active cases 
for all clients. 
- We have many branches who have decided to continue doing business 
with LMLN. 
- Even if you are primarily a user of Green, we welcome your business 
referrals any time you want to submit a case to LMLN. 
 
'Please reconfirm to your Professionals and Clients how to continue 
accessing the LMLN system 24/7: 
 
'Go directly to: www.lossmitigationlegalnetwork.com (either 
"Client" or "Professional" login). 
 
26 
 
'Also, please know that since 5/1 we have agreements directly with the 
Professionals and that our Service Fees are paid directly to them upon 
cleared payment +5 days. This model works and continues to pay out on 
a weekly basis. Also understand that LMLN has already paid HLP for all 
deals submitted prior to 5/1.' 
 
"60. 
In August 2009, the California Attorney General's office contacted the 
Respondent. The California Attorney General's office informed the Respondent that he 
was going to be required to obtain a bond to be able to continue to do business in 
California. In light of the California Attorney General's requirement, the Respondent 
decided to terminate his loan modification business. The Respondent sought someone to 
purchase the business. 
 
"61. 
On September 30, 2009, the Respondent entered into an asset purchase 
agreement with T. Thaddeus Marshall of the Marshall Law Group, Inc., a Florida 
corporation, whereby the Mr. Marshall purchased the assets of LMLN. 
 
"62. 
The Respondent did not allow his clients to retrieve their files, seek 
alternate counsel, or receive a refund. Rather, the Respondent simply transferred the files 
to Mr. Marshall and the clients were provided with new authorization forms to allow Mr. 
Marshall to speak with the lenders. 
 
"63. 
After selling the assets of LMLN to Marshall Law Group, in early 
January, 2010, Mr. Marshall wrote to the Respondent requesting a list of attorneys 
assigned to specific loan modifications. 
 
'First and foremost, I need the list of attorneys who were in place for the 
contracts in states I listed in my most recent letter at a minimum. 
 
'If you have such a list, please send it first and we can talk about the 
other issues late today or tomorrow. The bottom line is if it doesn't exist, 
I need to know that once and for all before we can come to any other 
agreement to resolve any of these issues.' 
 
27 
 
"64. 
The Respondent responded on January 2, 2010, by stating: 
 
'We need to talk about the attorneys . . . my model shifted to where I 
operated in states with counsel available should a need for co counsel 
arise ie [sic] . . . matter of state law interpretation needed . . . my intent 
was to always help you retain an attorney from my database should a 
specific need arise but the contracts are with my firm alone . . . so if I 
gave you a "list" it may not be accurate as some folks may no longer be 
interested in the work . . it was always on a case by case basis 
 
'I recently heard from New York regarding my work there . . . perhaps 
that is whom you have talked to recently? 
 
'I really want to flush this out with you and make things as right as 
possible . . . can we set a time to talk tomorrow? Perhaps right after lunch 
time?' 
 
"65. 
On January 4, 2010, Mr. Marshall wrote to the Respondent. In the letter, 
Mr. Marshall formally cancelled the agreement with the Respondent. 
 
'I am in receipt of your most recent email wherein you admitted 
that you actually have not had a network of attorneys retained and in 
place to ensure compliance in those states wherein Weaver Law Firm 
clients are located despite your previous claims to the contrary. I can't 
speak to your claim that you have shifted your model but you certainly 
have changed your story and I am not going to play games with you at 
this point. It is clear you have made material misrepresentations, 
including your claimed existence of a network of attorneys that 
supposedly rendered your representation of Weaver Law Firm clients 
compliant with applicable regulations in numerous states. This and other 
intentional misrepresentations on your part led to the contract between 
our firms and have now exposed me and my law firm to significant legal 
and financial liabilities for which I reserve the right to pursue all 
available remedies. 
28 
 
 
'Consider this to be my formal and final notice that the contract 
between the Weaver Law Group and the Marshall Law Group is hereby 
cancelled/rescinded based upon a material failure of consideration, based 
upon your intentional and fraudulent misrepresentations and based upon 
the other reasons that I have stated in writing previously. As a result of 
the cancellation/rescission of our contract and the lack of any of-counsel 
network that you previously claimed existed, the Marshall Law Firm has 
no choice but to immediately cease providing any further assistance to or 
on behalf of any Weaver Law Firm Clients. 
 
'Consequently, I am requesting that you contact all Weaver Law 
Firm clients in writing and advise them of the cancellation/rescission of 
our contract and instruct them to contact your firm for further assistance. 
I am also requesting that you copy our firm on those communications. 
Since time is of the essence in ensuring the interests of Weaver Law 
Firm clients are protected, our firm intends to notify them regarding the 
cancellation/rescission of our contract, as well. Of course, since the 
Weaver Law Firm charged, received and retained the money you 
collected from Weaver Law Firm clients, you are responsible for 
providing refunds to those clients who do not desire your assistance any 
longer or who your firm cannot assist for any reason. For the record, if 
you fail or refuse to take immediate and appropriate action to protect the 
interests of Weaver Law Firm clients at this point, you will be 
responsible for any/all negative consequences that occur as a result. 
 
'The account that you originally established with Go Daddy to 
host the Loss Mitigation Legal Network CRM is being returned to you at 
this time due to the cancellation/rescission of our contract. However, I 
am requesting continued access to the LMLN CRM for a reasonable 
period of time so that your efforts to protect the interests of Weaver Law 
Firm clients can be confirmed. 
 
29 
 
'If you refuse to cooperate and immediately notify Weaver Law 
Firm clients that you are either providing services or refunds to them at 
this point, I will take necessary steps to seek assistance from relevant 
legal authorities to resolve this matter. If you have anything to say, I 
demand that you say it in writing. Either way, it is time for you to step up 
and take responsibility for your actions and take steps to protect the 
interests of the Weaver Law Firm clients so as to avoid causing further 
damage.' 
 
"66. 
The Respondent, through LMLN, provided some clients requesting 
refunds with refunds. However, many clients did not receive any assistance from LMLN, 
requested refunds from the Respondent, but did not receive refunds. The Respondent was 
unable to provide the Disciplinary Administrator with a list of the clients who were 
eligible for a refund, requested a refund, but did not receive a refund. 
 
"67. 
Between October 5, 2009, and January 6, 2011, 36 individuals filed 
complaints with the Disciplinary Administrator against the Respondent for his conduct in 
loan modification matters. 
 
"68. 
During the course of the disciplinary investigation, the Deputy 
Disciplinary Administrator and the Special Investigator repeatedly requested that the 
Respondent provide certain documentation pertaining to the loan modification cases. The 
Respondent failed to provide the requested documents despite the repeated requests to do 
so. 
 
"69. 
At the hearing on the formal complaint, six clients testified. Each of the 
six clients hired the Respondent through LMLN to provide loan modification services. 
The testimony of the six clients was intended to be a representative sample of the thirty-
six complainants in this case. 
 
30 
 
 
"Representative Complainants 
 
 
"DA11036 
 
"70. 
On March 4, 2010, [R.S.] of Antioch, California, filed a complaint 
against the Respondent, case number DA11036. 
 
"71. 
Mr. [S.] retained LMLN to modify the loan on his home located in 
Antioch, California. Mr. [S.] believed that he was retaining a group of people who were 
educated in loan modification. Mr. [S.] hoped to be able to retain his home as a result of 
hiring LMLN. 
 
"72. 
Initially it appeared that progress was being made on his loan 
modification request. However, after some time, the progress ended. The Respondent 
telephoned Mr. [S.] and requested permission to perform a 'forensic audit' of his 
mortgage. Mr. [S.] agreed. Thereafter, Mr. [S.] did not hear from the Respondent again. 
 
"73. 
After Mr. [S.] filed the complaint with the Disciplinary Administrator, 
the Deputy Disciplinary Administrator provided Mr. [S.] with a copy of the report of the 
forensic audit. Mr. [S.] had not previously received a copy of the report. 
 
"74. 
Mr. [S.'s] loan was not modified and he did not receive a refund of the 
fees paid. Mr. [S.] predicted that he would lose his home by the end of 2011. 
 
 
"DA11050 
 
"75. 
On March 29, 2010, [C.G.] of Port Orchard, Washington, filed a 
complaint against the Respondent, case number DA11050. 
 
"76. 
Mr. [G.] retained LMLN to perform a loan modification on his home 
mortgage. Mr. [G.] paid LMLN $2,999.00. Initially, someone at LMLN by the name of 
Josh Lentz, assured Mr. [G.] that his loan modification was progressing. Mr. Lentz 
directed Mr. [G.] and his wife to refrain from contacting the lender. 
 
31 
 
"77. 
Based upon Mr. Lentz' direction, Mr. [G.] did not contact his lender. 
However, he was served with foreclosure documents. Mr. [G.] called his lender and he 
was informed that his lender had had no contact with LMLN and was not familiar with 
LMLN. 
 
"78. 
Mr. [G.'s] home mortgage was not modified. Mr. [G.] withdrew 
thousands of dollars from his 401K and is currently only one month past due on his first 
mortgage. However, Mr. [G.] is significantly past due on his second mortgage. 
 
"79. 
Mr. [G.] did not receive a loan modification or a refund of the $2,999.00 
paid to LMLN. 
 
 
"DA11063 
 
"80. 
On April 2, 2010, [D.P.] of Phoenix, Arizona, filed a complaint against 
the Respondent, case number DA11063. 
 
"81. 
Mr. [P.] received a direct mail advertisement from LMLN. Mr. [P.] 
called the telephone number listed and was told that LMLN's attorneys would negotiate a 
principal reduction or an interest rate reduction in his behalf. Mr. [P.] retained LMLN 
because an attorney was going to work on his behalf and because he was assured that he 
would receive a full refund if LMLN was unable to modify his loan. 
 
"82. 
Initially, LMLN was responsive to Mr. [P.'s] inquiries. However, after 
some period of time, Mr. [P.] was unable to contact anyone at LMLN. Mr. [P.'s] case was 
transferred to the Marshall Law Group without Mr. [P.'s] permission. Mr. [P.] contacted 
Mr. Marshall and was told that Mr. Marshall rescinded his contract with the Respondent 
because the Respondent provided inaccurate information to Mr. Marshall. 
 
"83. 
Mr. [P.] did not receive a loan modification nor did he receive a refund. 
Mr. [P.] is in the process of making a short sale of his home. 
 
32 
 
 
"DA11062 
 
"84. 
On April 12, 2010, [L.R.] of Washington, D.C., filed a complaint against 
the Respondent, case number DA11062. 
 
"85. 
Mr. [R.] suffered a mild stroke and was unable to pay the mortgage on 
his home in Washington, D.C., as well as the mortgage on a house he owned in San 
Antonio, Texas in which his mother resided. He researched sources for loan 
modifications on the Internet. Mr. [R.] discovered LMLN. 
 
"86. 
Mr. [R.] decided to retain LMLN because it was a network of lawyers 
and specialized in loan modification. Mr. [R.] contacted LMLN by telephone with some 
questions. When Mr. [R.] called LMLN by telephone, he was assured that the 
Respondent was a member of the Kansas bar and was trustworthy. Mr. [R.] paid LMLN 
$1,900.00 for a loan modification on his home in Washington, D.C. Additionally, Mr. 
[R.] paid LMLN $3,495.00 for a loan modification of his home in San Antonio, Texas, 
where his mother resided. 
 
"87. 
After some period of time, Mr. [R.] was unable to contact LMLN at their 
telephone numbers or electronic mail addresses. Thereafter, Mr. [R.] was notified that his 
case was transferred to the Marshall Law Group in Florida. Mr. [R.] did not authorize the 
transfer of his file from the Respondent to Mr. Marshall. 
 
"88. 
Because Mr. [R.] did not receive the assistance for which he paid the 
Respondent, he retained a lawyer in Washington, D.C. to assist him with the loan 
modification. Mr. [R.] was able to modify his loan in approximately four months. 
 
"89. 
LMLN did not provide loan modifications or any other services to Mr. 
[R.]. Mr. [R.] requested a refund, but did not receive a refund. 
 
 
"DA11080 
 
"90. 
On April 26, 2010, [P.F.] of Brentwood, California, filed a complaint 
against the Respondent, case number DA11080. 
33 
 
 
"91. 
On May 20, 2009, Mr. [F.] retained LMLN to modify his home mortgage 
located in California and the mortgage on a rental property located in Arizona. Mr. [F.] 
retained LMLN because he believed it to be an attorney group with specific expertise in 
loan modifications. Mr. [F.] paid LMLN $3,995.00 to modify his home mortgage and 
$3,495.00 to modify his rental property in Arizona. 
 
"92. 
The Respondent did not inform Mr. [F.] that the California Department 
of Real Estate had issued an order to desist and refrain to LMLN and HLP. 
 
"93. 
At first, LMLN informed Mr. [F.] as to the activity on his loan 
modification. However, in June or July, 2009, Mr. [F.] was unable to receive any 
information regarding his loan modification. LMLN failed to return Mr. [F.'s] telephone 
calls. 
 
"94. 
Mr. [F.] received notice in early October, 2009, that his file was being 
sold to the Marshall Law Group in Florida. The Marshall Law Group performed some 
work on the modification of his home mortgage. However, before the loan modification 
was complete, Mr. Marshall ceased communicating with Mr. [F.]. Mr. [F.] was able to 
complete the loan modification on this residential mortgage himself. 
 
"95. 
However, no work was completed on the loan modification of his 
Arizona rental property. Mr. [F.] requested a refund of the fee paid for the modification 
of his rental property. Mr. [F.] never received a refund of the fee paid for the 
modification of his rental property. 
 
 
"DA11101 
 
"96. 
On April 29, 2010, [L.M.] of Reno, Nevada, filed a complaint against the 
Respondent, case number DA11101. 
 
"97. 
Mr. [M.] retained HLP to modify loans on four rental properties. Mr. 
[M.] retained HLP because he was informed that attorneys would be working on 
achieving the modification of the loans and because there was a money back guarantee if 
34 
 
they were unable to modify the loans. Mr. [M.] paid $2,995 for each of the four requested 
loan modifications, for a total paid of $11,980,00. Each of the loans were with different 
lenders. 
 
"98. 
Mr. [M.] was directed to not contact the lenders. Mr. [M.'s] contact 
person at HLP informed Mr. [M.] that as long as he was current on the mortgages, 
nothing would happen. Based upon that statement, Mr. [M.] stopped paying the four 
mortgages. 
 
"99. 
About July 1, 2009, Mr. [M.] was notified that one of the mortgages had 
been sold to a different lender. Mr. [M.] contacted that lender to inform the lender that he 
was working through HLP to modify the loan. The lender informed Mr. [M.] that it 
would not even talk with a third party about a loan modification. 
 
"100. 
Mr. [M.] attempted to contact the Respondent to discuss the situation. 
However, Mr. [M.] was unable to get in contact with the Respondent. 
 
"101. 
Later, Mr. [M.] learned that his loan modification cases has been 
transferred to the Marshall Law Group. Mr. [M.] attempted to contact Mr. Marshall. 
However, the facsimile telephone number was disconnected and the letter that Mr. [M.] 
sent to Mr. Marshall was returned. 
 
"102. 
Mr. [M.] contacted the four lenders to determine the status of each of the 
four loan modifications. None of the lenders had received any information from LMLN 
or HLP. Thereafter, Mr. [M.] modified the loans on his own. 
 
"103. 
Mr. [M.] requested a refund of the fees paid. However, he never received 
a response or his money back. 
 
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
 
"104. 
Based upon the findings of fact, the Hearing Panel concludes as a matter 
of law that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, KRPC 1.15, KRPC 1.16, 
35 
 
KRPC 4.1, KRPC 5.3, KRPC 5.4, KRPC 5.5, KRPC 7.1, KRPC 8.1, and KRPC 8.4, as 
detailed below. 
 
"KRPC 1.3 
 
"105. 
Attorneys must act with reasonable diligence and promptness in 
representing their clients. See KRPC 1.3. The Respondent failed to diligently and 
promptly represent his clients in this case. The Respondent failed to take any steps to 
ensure that the loan modification clients received timely representation. The six 
representative clients presented a clear picture that the Respondent failed to provide any 
representation to them. Because the Respondent failed to act with reasonable diligence 
and promptness in representing his clients, the Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 1.3. 
 
"KRPC 1.4 
 
"106. 
KRPC 1.4(a) provides that '[a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably 
informed about the status of a matter and promptly comply with reasonable requests for 
information.' In this case, the Respondent failed to return telephone calls and failed to 
respond to letters and electronic mail messages. Because the Respondent failed to provide 
his clients with reasonable communication, the Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent violated KRPC 1.4(a). 
 
"KRPC 1.15 
 
"107. 
Lawyers must deal properly with the property of their clients and must 
keep the property of their clients safe. 
 
'A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in 
a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from 
the lawyer's own property. Funds shall be kept in a separate account 
maintained in the state of Kansas. Other property shall be identified as 
such and appropriately safeguarded. Complete records of such account 
funds and other property shall be kept by the lawyer and shall be 
36 
 
preserved for a period of five years after termination of the 
representation.' KRPC 1.15(a). 
 
The Respondent violated KRPC 1.15(a) when he deposited unearned fees into his 
operating account, thereby commingling his funds with those of his clients. Further, the 
Respondent admits to his misconduct in this regard. As such, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 1.15(a). 
 
"KRPC 1.16 
 
"108. 
KRPC 1.16 also requires lawyers to take certain steps to protect clients 
after the representation has been terminated. Specifically, KRPC 1.16(d) provides the 
requirement in this regard: 
 
'Upon termination of representation, a lawyer shall take steps to 
the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, such as 
giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of 
other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is 
entitled and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been 
earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent 
permitted by other law.' 
 
The Respondent violated KRPC 1.16(d) when he transferred his cases to Mr. Marshall 
without obtaining permission from his clients. Additionally, the Respondent violated 
KRPC 1.16(d) when he failed to provide refunds to clients of unearned fees. The Hearing 
Panel concludes that the Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 1.16(d). 
 
 
"KRPC 4.1 
 
"109. 
KRPC 4.1(a) provides that '[i]n the course of representing a client a 
lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third 
person.' The Respondent repeatedly violated KRPC 4.1(a). The Respondent violated 
KRPC 4.1(a) when he informed Mr. Van Driel that he was opening an office in 
California. The Respondent also violated KRPC 4.1(a) when he informed Mr. Marshall 
37 
 
and clients that LMLN consisted of a nation-wide network of attorneys. Additionally, the 
Respondent violated KRPC 4.1(a) when he informed his clients that their cases would be 
reviewed by an attorney licensed in their state of residence. Finally, the Respondent 
violated KRPC 4.1(a) when he stated in the advertising material that he would provide 
bankruptcy and other legal services when he had no intention of ever providing such 
services. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 
4.1(a). 
 
"KRPC 5.3 
 
"110. 
Attorneys, in supervisory positions, must properly supervise nonlawyer 
assistants. In the stipulation, the Respondent admitted that he failed to properly supervise 
nonlawyer assistants. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent 
violated KRPC 5.3. 
 
"KRPC 5.4 
 
"111. 
Attorneys are prohibited from splitting fees with nonlawyers. See KRPC 
5.4. In this case, the Respondent violated KRPC 5.4 on approximately 1,200 occasions. 
The Respondent shared the fees paid by the loan modification clients with nonlawyers at 
eBizware and HLP. The Respondent admits to his misconduct in this regard. As such, the 
Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 5.4. 
 
"KRPC 5.5 
 
"112. 
KRPC 5.5(b) prohibits attorneys from 'assist[ing] a person who is not a 
member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes the unauthorized 
practice of law.' The Respondent hired Mr. Patterson to work for LMLN after Mr. 
Patterson's license to practice law in the State of Kansas was suspended. Mr. Patterson 
engaged in the practice of law by meeting with clients. Thus, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 5.5(b) by assisting Mr. Patterson in the 
unauthorized practice of law. 
 
38 
 
"KRPC 7.1 
 
 
"113. 
KRPC 7.1 provides: 
 
'A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication 
about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or 
misleading if it: 
 
(a) 
contains a material misrepresentation of 
fact or law, or omits a fact necessary to make the 
statement considered as a whole not materially 
misleading.' 
 
The Respondent violated KRPC 7.1 when he issued the advertising material that LMLN 
consisted of a nation-wide network of attorneys. Other than the Respondent, only one 
other attorney was in the 'nation-wide network of attorneys.' The Respondent's statement 
was materially false. Additionally, the Respondent violated KRPC 7.1 when he stated in 
the advertising material that he would provide bankruptcy and other legal services when 
he had no intention of ever providing such services. As such, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 7.1. 
 
"KRPC 8.1 
 
"114. 
Lawyers must cooperate in disciplinary investigations. KRPC 8.1(b) 
provides the requirement in this regard. '[A] lawyer in connection with a . . . disciplinary 
matter, shall not: . . . knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from 
[a] . . . disciplinary authority.' KRPC 8.1(b). The Deputy Disciplinary Administrator and 
the Special Investigator repeatedly requested that the Respondent provide certain 
documentation. The Respondent repeatedly failed to do so. As a result, the Hearing Panel 
concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.1(b). 
 
39 
 
"KRPC 8.4 
 
"115. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation.' KRPC 8.4(c). The Respondent 
engaged in conduct involving dishonesty when he informed Mr. Van Driel that he was 
opening an office in California. The Respondent also engaged in dishonest conduct when 
he informed Mr. Marshall and clients that LMLN consisted of a nation-wide network of 
attorneys. Additionally, the Respondent engaged in conduct that involved dishonesty 
when he informed his clients that their cases would be reviewed by an attorney licensed 
in their state of residence. Finally, the Respondent engaged in dishonest conduct when he 
stated in the advertising material that he would provide bankruptcy and other legal 
services when he had no intention of ever providing such services. As such, the Hearing 
Panel concludes that the Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(c). 
 
"116. 
'It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in any other 
conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to practice law.' KRPC 8.4(g). The 
Respondent engaged in predatory conduct with regard to the loan modification clients. 
Many of the loan modification clients were in dire financial straits. The Respondent 
preyed on their vulnerability by assuring them that a licensed attorney would be assisting 
them with their loan modification and by guaranteeing that their money would be 
refunded if their loan was not modified. Predatory conduct of this sort adversely reflects 
on the Respondent's fitness to practice law. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the 
Respondent violated KRPC 8.4(g). 
 
 
"AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION 
 
"STANDARDS FOR IMPOSING LAWYER SANCTIONS 
 
"117. 
In making this recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel 
considered the factors outlined by the American Bar Association in its Standards for 
Imposing Lawyer Sanctions (hereinafter 'Standards'). Pursuant to Standard 3, the factors 
to be considered are the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, the potential or actual 
injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating 
factors. 
 
40 
 
"118. 
Duty Violated. The Respondent violated his duty to his clients to provide 
diligent representation and adequate communication. The Respondent violated his duty to 
his clients to properly safeguard his clients' property. The Respondent violated his duty to 
his clients, the public, and the legal profession by failing to maintain his personal 
integrity. 
 
"119. 
Mental State. The Respondent knowingly and intentionally violated his 
duties. 
 
"120. 
Injury. As a result of the Respondent's misconduct, the Respondent 
caused actual serious injury to the loan modification clients. 
 
"121. 
Aggravating or Mitigating Factors. Aggravating circumstances are any 
considerations or factors that may justify an increase in the degree of discipline to be 
imposed. In reaching its recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, 
found the following aggravating factors present: 
 
"122. 
Dishonest or Selfish Motive. The Respondent's misconduct was 
motivated by dishonesty and selfishness. The Respondent's scheme was to get something 
for nothing. By lending his law license to eBizware and HLP, the Respondent received 
money. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent's misconduct was 
motivated by dishonesty and selfishness. 
 
"123. 
A Pattern of Misconduct. The Respondent engaged in a pattern of 
misconduct. Over a period of approximately one year, the Respondent solicited loan 
modification clients. The Respondent assured the clients that they would receive their 
money back if their loan was not modified. While the Respondent provided some 
refunds, many clients did not receive their money back. 
 
"124. 
In addition to the pattern of misconduct of failing to refund the fees, the 
Respondent also engaged in a pattern of misconduct by failing to diligently work on the 
loan modification cases, by failing to communicate with his clients, and by failing to 
properly terminate the representation. 
 
41 
 
"125. 
Thirty-six individuals filed complaints alleging the same or similar 
misconduct. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel finds that the Respondent's pattern of 
misconduct is a significant aggravating factor in this case. 
 
"126. 
Multiple Offenses. The Respondent violated KRPC 1.3, KRPC 1.4, 
KRPC 1.15, KRPC 1.16, KRPC 4.1, KRPC 5.3, KRPC 5.4, KRPC 5.5, KRPC 7.1, KRPC 
8.1, and KRPC 8.4. Accordingly, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent 
committed multiple offenses. 
 
"127. 
Bad Faith Obstruction of the Disciplinary Proceeding by Intentionally 
Failing to Comply with Rules or Orders of the Disciplinary Process. The Deputy 
Disciplinary Administrator and the Special Investigator requested that the Respondent 
provide specific documentation regarding the loan modification cases. The Respondent 
failed to do so. As such, the Hearing Panel concludes that the Respondent intentionally 
failed to comply with the rules or orders of the disciplinary process. 
 
"128. 
Vulnerability of Victim. Many of the loan modification clients were 
vulnerable. Many of them were significantly past due on their mortgages and faced losing 
their homes. The Hearing Panel concludes that the victims of the Respondent's 
misconduct were vulnerable. 
 
"129. 
Mitigating circumstances are any considerations or factors that may 
justify a reduction in the degree of discipline to be imposed. In reaching its 
recommendation for discipline, the Hearing Panel, in this case, found the following 
mitigating circumstances present: 
 
"130. 
Absence of a Prior Disciplinary Record. The Respondent has not 
previously been disciplined. 
 
"131. 
Previous Good Character and Reputation in the Community Including 
Any Letters from Clients, Friends and Lawyers in Support of the Character and General 
Reputation of the Attorney. The Respondent introduced a number of letters of support. 
The authors of the letters expressed their opinion regarding the Respondent's character. 
 
42 
 
"132. 
Remorse. The Respondent expressed remorse for having engaged in the 
misconduct. 
 
"133. 
In addition to the above-cited factors, the Hearing Panel has thoroughly 
examined and considered the following Standards: 
 
'4.11 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
converts client property and causes injury or potential injury to a client. 
 
'4.61 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
deceives a client with the intent to benefit the lawyer or another, and 
causes serious injury or potentially serious injury to a client. 
 
'5.11 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when: 
 
(a) a lawyer engages in serious criminal conduct a 
necessary element of which includes intentional 
interference with the administration of justice, false 
swearing, misrepresentation, fraud, extortion, 
misappropriation, or theft; or the sale, distribution or 
importation of controlled substances; or the intentional 
killing of another; or an attempt or conspiracy or 
solicitation of another to commit any of these offenses; 
 
(b) a lawyer engages in any other intentional conduct 
involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation 
that serious adversely reflects on the lawyer's fitness to 
practice. 
 
'7.1 
Disbarment is generally appropriate when a lawyer knowingly 
engages in conduct that is a violation of a duty owed as a professional 
with the intent to obtain a benefit for the lawyer or another, and causes 
serious or potentially serious injury to a client, the public, or the legal 
system.' 
43 
 
 
 
"RECOMMENDATION 
 
 
"134. 
The Disciplinary Administrator recommended that the Respondent be 
disbarred. Counsel for the Respondent recommended that the Respondent be indefinitely 
suspended from the practice of law. 
 
 
"135. 
Based upon the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and the Standards 
listed above, the Hearing Panel unanimously recommends that the Respondent be 
disbarred. 
 
 
"136. 
Costs are assessed against the Respondent in an amount to be certified by 
the Office of the Disciplinary Administrator." 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
In a disciplinary proceeding, this court considers the evidence, the findings of the 
disciplinary panel, and the arguments of the parties and determines whether violations of 
KRPC exist and, if they do, what discipline should be imposed. Attorney misconduct 
must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Foster, 292 Kan. 940, 945, 
258 P.3d 375 (2011); see Supreme Court Rule 211(f) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 334). 
Clear and convincing evidence is "'evidence that causes the factfinder to believe that "the 
truth of the facts asserted is highly probable."'" In re Lober, 288 Kan. 498, 505, 204 P.3d 
610 (2009) (quoting In re Dennis, 286 Kan. 708, 725, 188 P.3d 1 [2008]).  
 
Respondent was given adequate notice of the formal complaint, to which he filed 
an answer, and adequate notice of both the hearing before the panel and the hearing 
before this court. The respondent filed no exceptions to the hearing panel's final hearing 
report. As such, the findings of fact are deemed admitted. Supreme Court Rule 212(c), (d) 
(2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 352). Moreover, the hearing panel's findings are supported by 
clear and convincing evidence. Further, the panel's factual findings support its 
44 
 
conclusions of law. We therefore adopt the panel's findings and conclusions. Thus, the 
only issue before us is the appropriate discipline to be imposed. 
 
At the hearing before this court, the office of the Disciplinary Administrator 
supported the hearing panel's recommendation that the respondent be disbarred. The 
respondent, through counsel and personally, continued to request indefinite suspension. 
Respondent personally professed to the court that his troubles were born of good 
intentions and that his overarching desire was simply to help people with their mortgage 
problems. We are unpersuaded by that argument. Respondent took money from 
thousands of distressed and vulnerable mortgagors; he gave most of that money to non-
lawyers and did nothing on behalf of the mortgagors; and then respondent refused to 
refund the fees to the dissatisfied clients as his advertisement had promised. Disbarment 
is the appropriate sanction. 
 
CONCLUSION AND DISCIPLINE 
 
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Tracy D. Weaver be disbarred from the practice of 
law in the state of Kansas, effective on the filing of this opinion, in accordance with 
Supreme Court Rule 203(a)(1) (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 280). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the respondent shall comply with Supreme Court 
Rule 218 (2011 Kan. Ct. R. Annot. 379). 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the costs of these proceedings be assessed to the 
respondent and that this opinion be published in the official Kansas reports.