Opinion ID: 2781963
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Arkansas, Matter 13-DE-L-0337

Text: A couple paid respondent $2,900 to assist in obtaining a modification of their already modified home loan. They did not receive adequate communications and could not obtain a status update. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated the following Arkansas Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), and 8.1(b). 2. California, Matters 13-DE-L-1201, 13-DE-L-0135, 13-DE-L-0210, and 13-DE-L-0050 Client A paid $2,900 upfront for help with a loan modification matter. Client B paid $2,800 despite being eligible for free services and was eventually told to send the lender her documents directly. Client Couple C paid $2,900 and were informed the foreclosure on their home had been stopped. They subsequently learned the home had been sold at foreclosure. Client Couple D paid $2,900, but received neither diligent service nor adequate communications. Respondent's conduct constituted the unauthorized practice of law in violation of § 6125 of the California Business and Professional Code, and Rule 1-300 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct. By charging and collecting an upfront fee, respondent violated California Civil Code § 2944.7. In addition, respondent's conduct violated these California Rules of Professional Conduct: 1-400, 3-110, 3-500, 3-700, 4-100, and 4-200. 3. Colorado, Matter 13-DE-L-0162 Client was told respondent could assist her only if she stopped paying her mortgage and instead paid respondent $2,900. After receiving client's payment, respondent did not work diligently on her behalf or do anything to assist in client's loan modification. When client called respondent's law firm directly for a status update, she received a voicemail response from respondent's employee directing her not to call his office. Following respondent's interim suspension, the third party contacted client to inform her that respondent's firm was out of business. Client lost her home in foreclosure. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated the following Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(d), 5.3, and 8.1(b). 4. Connecticut, Matters 13-DE-L-0244, 13-DE-L-0992, and 13-DE-L- 0563 Client Couple A paid respondent $2,900 to help them with their mortgage. They received confusing and conflicting emails from three different processors who identified themselves as employees of respondent's firm. Respondent did not diligently work to obtain a modification or otherwise earn the fee collected. After respondent was placed on interim suspension, one of the three processors emailed clients and said their file had been submitted to their lender. Later, clients were advised that respondent had transferred their file to another firm. Clients gave the successor firm permission to negotiate on their behalf, but did not receive satisfactory service. Clients later learned respondent had been suspended. Client B paid respondent $2,900 to help her obtain a loan modification. Respondent did not provide Client B with diligent representation or adequate communication. The loan processors she thought were firm employees often provided her with conflicting information about the status of her matter. After respondent's interim suspension, the loan processors continued to tell her they were working on her file, but indicated they were with a successor law firm. When she refused to pay additional fees to the successor firm, any work being performed on her file ceased. Client C hired respondent's firm to help her obtain a loan modification. She paid the firm $2,400 after a non-lawyer salesperson gave her legal advice and told her respondent's firm was very experienced. Sometimes she could not receive any response from her firm contacts, and at other times she received inconsistent and/or false information. Client C did not receive any discernable service from respondent or his firm and ultimately obtained a loan modification on her own. Respondent's conduct in these matters violated the following portions of the Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.1, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.15, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(2), and 8.4(d). 5. Florida, Matter 12-DE-L-1419 Client responded to an internet advertisement and was contacted by a salesperson associated with respondent's firm. Client paid the firm $2,900, but did not receive the promised modification. Client communicated only with employees of the marketing company and the loan modification processing companies. Respondent did nothing on client's behalf. Under Florida law, it is generally impermissible to charge or collect a fee for foreclosure prevention services prior to completion of all of the services. Florida Statutes § 501.1377. Respondent did not fall within any exception to that general rule. Florida Statutes § 501.212; § 501.1377. Respondent's collection of an up-front fee violated Rule 4-1.5 of the Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, and he also violated Rules 4-1.3, 4-1.4, 4-5.3, 4-7.13, and 4-8.1(b). 6. Georgia, Matter 13-DE-L-0273 Client hired respondent after a salesperson guaranteed a loan modification and convinced client to sell his truck to pay the $2,900 fee. No progress was made on Client's file, and respondent failed to notify him of his suspension. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated the following portions of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 5.3, 1.16(d), 7.1, and 8.1(b). 7. Idaho, Matter 13-DE-L-0256 Client hired respondent to help him obtain a loan modification and agreed to pay half of the $2,900 fee up front and the second half after his loan was modified. However, client's credit card was charged with both payments before any work was completed. Respondent did not provide client with adequate communication or diligent representation. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated Rules 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(d), 5.3, 8.1(b), and 8.4 of the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct. 8. Illinois, Matters 13-DE-L-0051 and 13-DE-L-0053 Client A hired respondent after a salesperson convinced him his home could be saved from foreclosure and his mortgage debt reduced. Client was specifically told the firm could practice law in his home state of Illinois as well as Oklahoma, where his lender was located. He was instructed to stop paying his mortgage and to use that money to pay respondent $2,900. After several months, client requested a refund. By this point in time, respondent was on interim suspension. Client did not receive a refund and his file was not surrendered to the ATP. Client Couple B paid respondent's firm $2,900 for loan modification assistance. A non-lawyer associated with the firm instructed the couple not to make further mortgage payments. Respondent failed to provide competent or diligent service and failed to adequately communicate. After respondent was placed on interim suspension, non-lawyers associated with respondent shared clients' confidential information with another South Carolina law firm without the couple's consent. Respondent's conduct in these matters violated Rule 5.5 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, which prohibits lawyers from assisting another person in the unauthorized practice of law and prohibits lawyers not admitted in Illinois from holding themselves out as admitted in the jurisdiction. Respondent's conduct also violated the following additional portions of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4. 9. Kentucky, Matters 13-DE-L-0008 and 13-DE-L-0034 Client A agreed to pay respondent $2,900 after a salesperson called respondent a loan modification specialist and made unrealistic promises. Client A did not receive adequate communication and when she was updated, she was given false information about the status of her loan modification. Respondent did not provide her with diligent service or the level of service she had been promised. For example, client was promised the firm would have a court-ordered mediation cancelled, but when it was not cancelled, she had to attend alone. Neither respondent nor the nonlawyers associated with his firm timely informed client of his interim suspension. The third party charged Client A's final $725 credit card payment to a different firm without her knowledge or consent. Client A attended a foreclosure hearing by herself. When the third party surrendered Client A's file, it contained no evidence of work performed on her behalf. Client Couple B were persuaded to hire respondent's firm after a salesperson promised them the attorney fee would be held in trust and that their mortgage payment would be reduced. They were advised to stop making payments as the firm tried to negotiate a modification. After Client Couple B paid the $2,900 attorney's fee, communication ceased. Respondent did not diligently work on the couple's matter and did not surrender their file upon his suspension. Respondent's conduct in these matters violated the following portions of the Kentucky Supreme Court Rules 3.130: -1.3, -1.4, -1.5, -1.6, -1.16(d), -5.3, - 7.15, -8.1, and -8.4. 10. Maine, Matter 13-DE-L-0226 Client and his wife paid respondent's firm $3,500 to help lower their mortgage payments. They completed several packets of forms the firm provided, but none were submitted to the lienholders. They learned the firm was closed more than a month after respondent's suspension. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated the following portions of the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.5, 1.16(d), 5.3, and 8.1(b). 11. New Hampshire, Matter 13-DE-L-0152 Client paid respondent's firm $3,495 following a high-pressure sales pitch. Client experienced difficulty reaching anyone and never had a consistent firm contact. He never received the services or results he was promised. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated the following portions of the New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 5.3, and 8.1(b). 12. New Jersey, Matter 13-DE-L-1028 Client hired respondent to help him with a loan modification and made one payment of $967 prior to respondent's suspension. Respondent had not earned the fee and did not issue client a refund. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated the following portions of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.16(d) and 8.1(b). 13. Nevada, Matter 13-DE-L-0052 Clients paid respondent $2,900 to help them with a loan modification after a non-lawyer salesperson gave them false and misleading information about respondent and his firm. Respondent did not provide diligent representation or adequate communication. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated the following portions of the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c). 14. New York, Matter 13-DE-L-0566 Client paid respondent $2,900 after a salesperson promised her specific results. Respondent did not diligently represent client and did not adequately communicate with her. He did not earn the fee and failed to surrender the unearned fee or client's file upon his suspension. By collecting money to represent client in this matter, respondent engaged in the practice of law in violation of Section 484 of the New York Judiciary Law and Rule 5.5 of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct. Respondent's conduct also violated the following portions of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.15, 1.16(e), 5.3, and 8.4(c). 15. North Carolina, Matter 13-DE-L-0227 Clients paid respondent $2,495 to help them obtain a loan modification. By offering to provide loan modification services in North Carolina, respondent engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 84-4 and Rule 5.5 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Further, because he was not licensed to practice law in North Carolina and accepted an upfront fee, respondent violated N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-424. Respondent's conduct also violated the following portions of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.16(d), 5.3, and 8.1(b). 16. Pennsylvania, Matters 13-DE-L-0182, 13-DE-L-0475, 13-DE-L- 0081, and 13-DE-L-0211 Client A paid respondent $2,900 to help her obtain a lower mortgage payment. Respondent did not diligently represent her or provide her with adequate communication. After respondent's suspension, information from her file was shared with individuals associated with another South Carolina law firm without her consent. Client B tried to obtain a loan modification under the Making Home Affordable Modification Program, but she was ineligible. She then communicated with a salesperson associated with respondent, who assured her that she was eligible for the program and that her lender was misleading her. After the salesperson made this claim and made other promises, client hired the firm and paid respondent $2,900. Respondent did not diligently represent client or adequately communicate with her. After respondent's suspension, information from her file was shared with individuals associated with another South Carolina law firm which solicited her business by email and phone. Client Couple C paid respondent $3,000 to help them obtain a loan modification. After paying the fee and submitting the paperwork, the couple received no communication and no progress was made. A foreclosure sale was already scheduled on Client D's home. He received numerous phone calls from salespeople associated with respondent's firm, who falsely reported that the firm had Pennsylvania bar members on staff. Client hired respondent and paid $2,000. When Client D received the fee agreement, he noticed the terms and conditions were different from those the salesperson described. Client requested a refund, but did not receive one. Respondent's conduct in these matters violated the following portions of the Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c). 17. Tennessee, Matters 13-DE-L-0297, 13-DE-L-0049, and 13-DE-L- 0183 Client A paid respondent $2,200 to help him with his home loan. After receiving no services, he sought a refund but received no response. Client B paid respondent $2,900 to help her with a loan modification after a salesperson identified herself as a firm employee and gave her false and misleading information about the firm. Respondent performed no work on client's behalf and never contacted her lender. Client Couple C paid respondent $2,800 to help them obtain a loan modification after their own attempts were unsuccessful. They were repeatedly asked to submit documents they had already submitted and experienced a lack of responsiveness from firm contacts. Respondent's conduct in these matters violated the following portions of the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), 8.4(a), and 8.4(c). 18. Texas, Matters 13-DE-L-0054, 13-DE-L-1156, 13-DE-L-0215, and 13-DE-L-0062 Client A paid respondent $1,300 after a salesperson promised him the firm could obtain specific loan modification terms for him. Client submitted the requested paperwork, but it was returned to him with instructions to mail it to his lender. He then received a phone call advising him that he would have to pursue the matter on his own. Client's phone calls and emails to the firm went unanswered. After filing a complaint with the Better Business Bureau, client received a call from the firm offering to represent him for an additional payment of $1,600. The caller guaranteed favorable results, while noting that such a guarantee is illegal. Client made the additional payment and again communication ceased. Client Couple B hired respondent to help them obtain a loan modification. They were advised by their non-lawyer firm contact to stop paying their mortgage even after their income increased significantly. Shortly after clients paid the entire $2,900 fee, their firm contacts stopped communicating with them. Thereafter, the lender assessed a large amount of fees for late payments and began foreclosure proceedings. Client Couple C paid $2,900 after receiving legal advice and misleading information from a firm salesperson. They were unable to speak with respondent. They were told their modification had been worked out but never received any paperwork. Client D hired respondent to help her obtain a loan modification, agreeing to pay the firm's $2,900 fee in four $750 [sic] installments. Shortly after her first payment to respondent, client's lender offered to modify her loan if she made certain payments over three months. She forwarded the lender's offer to her firm contact, but was instructed not to make payments or acknowledge the offer as the firm could negotiate a better interest rate. Respondent was then suspended, and her firm contact told Client D to make the payments the lender offered. Her file and personal information were then shared with another firm without her knowledge or consent. Respondent's conduct in these matters violated the following portions of the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.01, 1.04, 1.05, 1.15, 5.03, 5.05, 7.02, 8.01(b), and 8.04(a)(3). 19. Virginia, Matter 13-DE-L-1191 Client hired respondent after a salesperson emailed her false and misleading information about respondent and his services. After paying $2,900 and repeatedly submitting paperwork, client questioned the firm's conduct. The firm contacts stopped communicating with her. Respondent's conduct in this matter violated Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(c), and 8.4(c). 20. Washington, Matters 13-DE-L-0413, 13-DE-L-0314, 13-DE-L-0370, and 13-DE-L-0433 Client A paid respondent $2,900 but did not receive the services she was promised. Respondent did not surrender her file upon his suspension, but the loan modification processing company forwarded the electronic file they maintained to the ATP. Client B paid respondent $2,900 after a salesperson's statements gave him an unreasonable expectation of what the firm could accomplish for him. Client stopped making mortgage payments per his firm contact's instructions. Respondent was suspended approximately one week after client's final payment, and did not provide any meaningful representation. After respondent's suspension, confidential information from client's file was shared with another law firm without client's knowledge or consent. A salesperson gave Client C misleading information about the services respondent could provide and persuaded her to divert funds earmarked for her mortgage payments to pay the firm. Soon after she paid the $2,900 fee, all communication with the firm ceased. Respondent provided no meaningful representation to client and she lost her home in foreclosure. Client Couple D decided against hiring respondent's firm, but relented after the salesperson continued calling them and would not take no for an answer. They paid $1,000 toward the fee before signing a fee agreement. They then changed their minds and requested a refund, but did not receive one. Respondent's conduct violated the following portions of the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.16(d), 5.3, 7.1, 8.1(b), and 8.4(c). SANCTION The authority to discipline lawyers and the manner in which discipline is imposed is a matter within the Court's discretion. In re Jardine, 410 S.C. 369, 764 S.E.2d 924 (2014) (internal citation omitted). When the lawyer is in default, the sole question before the Court is that of the appropriate sanction. Id. In determining the sanction, the Court will consider the respondent's failure to cooperate with ODC's investigation, his false statements to ODC, and his failure to appear at the disciplinary hearing. Id. The magnitude of respondent's misconduct mandates disbarment. The Panel found respondent was subject to discipline pursuant to Rules 7(a)(1), 7(a)(2), 7(a)(3), 7(a)(4), 7(a)(5), 7(a)(6), and 7(a)(10), RLDE, Rule 413. We agree with the Panel's findings and adopt its recommendations as to additional sanctions which are warranted here. Prior to seeking reinstatement, respondent must pay the costs of this disciplinary proceeding, make restitution to the fortynine clients identified in the attached list, repay the Lawyers Fund for Client Protection for any payments made on respondent's behalf, and complete the Legal Ethics and Practice Program, Ethics School, Trust Account School, and Advertising School.