Consumer complaint received 2025-11-18 00:00:00
Product: Money transfer, virtual currency, or money service — Mobile or digital wallet
Issue: Fraud or scam — 
Company: FIRST CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.
State: CA

Complaint narrative:
To whom it may concern : I am requesting that CIT Bank and XXXX XXXX  treat the {$20000.00} I paid to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX as what it is : money obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, and the unauthorized practice of law by a suspended attorney, not a legitimate legal-services transaction. 

XXXX. A suspended attorney can not legally practice law or collect retainers in any state Under nationwide attorney-licensing and disciplinary rules, including the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX, a lawyer who has been suspended is prohibited from practicing law, giving legal advice, or assisting others in practicing law in any jurisdiction. XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX expressly prohibits a lawyer from practicing law where doing so violates that jurisdictions regulation of the legal profession, or from assisting another in doing so. 

XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX defines professional misconduct to include violating the rules of professional conduct, and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. States, including California and others, have adopted parallel rules that bar unauthorized practice of law and assisting it, and that treat such conduct as disciplinable misconduct.

Once suspended, an attorney is legally considered not authorized to practice anywhere, not just in the suspending state. Any retainer taken under those conditions is inherently suspect and may be considered void, unenforceable, and obtained by fraud and false pretenses. 

XXXX. A suspended attorney can not run or profit from a law firm Under state and national ethics rules, a suspended attorney must cease all legal operations. They can not act as principal, founder, or managing attorney of a firm, can not direct staff in the practice of law, can not solicit clients or negotiate fee agreements, and can not collect legal fees or retainers through a law group or subsidiary entity. These principles flow from the same unauthorized-practice and misconduct rules, which prohibit lawyers from circumventing discipline through the acts of another or by assisting others to violate professional rules.

Public disciplinary records show that attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX has been suspended from the practice of law in XXXX  for five years by order of the Supreme Court XXXX Pennsylvania, effective XX/XX/XXXX, following a Disciplinary Board recommendation. The XXXX  Disciplinary Boards public attorney profile lists his current status as Suspended. In XXXX, the XXXX  State Bar Disciplinary Board revoked his privilege to practice law in that state effective XX/XX/XXXX, for violations of professional rules governing diligence, communication, fees, safekeeping property, terminating representation, supervisory responsibilities, and misconduct. 

Despite these disciplinary actions, his law-brand entities ( XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ) have continued to advertise nationwide legal services and student/education defense representation through websites and marketing materials that present him as an active, lead attorney. That continuing operation, combined with his suspension, raises serious concerns of ongoing unauthorized practice of law and illegal fee collection. 

XXXX. What I paid and how it was represented There were two key transactions, processed by two banks : XXXX. XXXX XXXX  {$350.00} consultation fee I was charged {$350.00} for a one-hour consultation specifically with attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX That consultation never occurred as represented. Instead, I received approximately XXXX minutes with someone who was not clearly identified as a licensed attorney, and certainly not the attorney I paid for. I never received the one-hour consultation I was promised. 
XXXX. CIT Bank approximately {$20000.00} retainer on or about XX/XX/XXXX CIT Bank processed a phone transfer of approximately {$20000.00} to an external account identified on my statement as a transfer to XXXX XXXX around XX/XX/XXXX. This was presented to me as a fee retainer for assistance with a contingency case : I was told that the underlying lawsuit would be handled on a contingency basis, but that I had to pay a large upfront retainer so the firm could take the case and prepare filings. This structure is highly irregularpaying a massive retainer for a supposed contingency caseespecially where there is no valid, signed written fee agreement, no clear trust-account disclosures, and a suspended attorney involved. 

In other words, both the {$350.00} and {$20000.00} were induced by misrepresentations about who would provide legal services, the attorneys licensing and disciplinary status, the nature of the case ( contingency vs. fee-based ), and the existence of any lawful fee agreement or trust arrangement. 

I later learned that no valid written retainer agreement governing the {$20000.00} existed, I received no meaningful legal work in return, and the attorney whose name was used to solicit these funds was not authorized to practice law at all due to suspension and disciplinary action described above. 

XXXX. Evidence that this is not a normal fee dispute, but fraud I now have written confirmation from the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of XXXX  that my complaint against XXXX XXXX XXXX has been filed and logged. The Disciplinary Boards public pages and the Supreme Courts disciplinary order confirm his five-year suspension and prior discipline. The XXXX  XXXX XXXX also publicly reports revocation of his privilege to practice in that state for serious professional violations. 

Additional evidence includes : Public disciplinary orders from Pennsylvania and other jurisdictions showing suspension and prior discipline. 
Attorney-status records showing that his XXXX  license is currently suspended. 
Marketing and website content from his law entities holding out nationwide XXXX XXXX and student/education defense services despite his suspension. 

In short, this is not a situation where I simply changed my mind about a lawyer. It is a case where : A suspended attorney continued to act as a lawyer, His operation collected money under false pretenses, I was never given the consultation or representation I was sold, and There is no valid fee agreement or bill justifying the {$20000.00}. 

XXXX. Why this is fraud from a banking and consumer-protection standpoint From a banking and consumer-protection perspective, this situation involves misrepresentation and omission of material facts ( including the attorneys suspended status ), services paid for but not rendered, unauthorized practice of law, and collection of fees under false pretenses. These are precisely the kinds of unfair or deceptive acts that consumer financial regulators and courts view as fraud. 

A suspended attorney can not lawfully accept retainers or operate a law firm. Therefore, any authorization I gave to Discover or XXXX was fraud-induced authorizationI only approved those transactions because I relied on false claims about the attorneys status, authority, and services. When authorization is obtained by deception, regulators and courts often treat resulting transfers in a similar manner to unauthorized or improper transactions, particularly in the context of electronic fund transfers and card payments. 

XXXX. The banks obligations, even when a customer authorized the transfer Even when a customer technically initiates or authorizes an electronic transfer, banks still have obligations under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act ( EFTA ) and Regulation E to investigate alleged errors and unauthorized electronic fund transfers, and to respond within specific time frames. Regulation Es error-resolution rule ( 12 C.F.R. 1005.11 ) requires financial institutions to investigate reported errors and, in many circumstances, to provide provisional credit if the investigation can not be completed within the defined period. CFPB guidance and compliance materials emphasize that errors include certain unauthorized or incorrect electronic transfers and that institutions must have fair, documented procedures for handling consumer fraud and dispute claims.

Additionally, national bank regulators such as the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) provide complaint and enforcement channels for consumers when banks mishandle fraud investigations or disputes. The OCCs HelpWithMyBank.gov and its consumer-complaints pages explain that the OCC can review national banks handling of consumer issues, including fraud and unauthorized transactions. The CFPBs complaint portal and guidance similarly highlight banks obligations to respond to and address consumer complaints and fraud issues related to financial products and services.

By simply coding my dispute as a routine authorized merchant transaction and refusing to meaningfully consider the fraud-induced nature of the authorization, the illegal status of the recipients law practice, and the absence of any valid contract or services, XXXX XXXX  and CIT Bank have XXXX in my view, failed to meet the spirit of these consumer-protection obligations. 

XXXX. Independent verification and role of online research The factual information regarding XXXX XXXX XXXX disciplinary history, suspensions, and revoked privileges in multiple states comes from : The XXXX  Disciplinary Board and Supreme Court orders suspending him for five years, and earlier disciplinary actions. 
The XXXX State Bar Disciplinary Boards revocation of his privilege to practice law in Virginia for misconduct related to fees, safekeeping property, supervision, and other professional-rule violations. 
Public summaries and reporting ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, case summaries, secondary commentary ) that corroborate the five-year suspension and its underlying findings. 

Initial verification was done through online research using publicly available disciplinary and bar records, and I then confirmed this by directly filing with the XXXX  Disciplinary Board, which issued a confirmation number for my complaint. This documentation supports my position that the {$20000.00} was obtained by an individual who was not authorized to practice law or collect legal fees at the time. 

XXXX. What I am asking CIT Bank and XXXX XXXX  to do Given all of the above, I respectfully request that CIT Bank and XXXX XXXX  : XXXX. Treat the {$20000.00} retainer transfer and the {$350.00} consultation charge as fraud-induced transactions tied to an illegal, suspended-attorney operation. 
XXXX. Conduct a full, formal fraud investigation into these transfers, rather than coding them as simple merchant disputes, taking into account the attorneys suspended status and the unauthorized practice of law. 
XXXX. Reverse and refund the total {$20000.00} to my accounts, to the greatest extent permitted under law and network rules, applying the protections of EFTA/Regulation E and other applicable consumer-protection laws. 
XXXX. Block any future payments to XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX or any related entities connected to this suspended attorney. 
XXXX. Flag the receiving accounts for suspected fraud and cooperate fully with : State bar authorities ( Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, California, and any other relevant jurisdictions ) ; The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ( CFPB ) ; The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency ( OCC ) in the case of CIT ; The Federal Bureau of Investigation ( FBI/IC3 ) and local law enforcement, to the extent they investigate fraudulent legal-services schemes. 

If, after being provided with this information and supporting documentation, a bank still refuses to investigate or assist, I understand that I have the right to seek further relief from the OCC, the CFPB, state bar authorities, and law-enforcement agencies. My goal is not only to recover my own funds, but also to prevent other consumersespecially vulnerable clients seeking XXXX or civil-rights representationfrom being defrauded in the same way by an attorney who was not legally authorized to practice law or collect fees when these payments were taken.

Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation