Mortgage modification practices get out-of-state lawyers in trouble

On April 24^th, two out-of-state lawyers were debarred by the South Carolina Supreme Court.* If the word “debar” isn’t familiar to you, don’t feel alone. Miriam-Webster indicates the definition of the word, used in a legal sense is, “to bar from having or doing something.” Our Supreme Court uses the word to mean to preclude a lawyer from another state from practicing law or seeking any form of admission to practice law in South Carolina, including pro hac vici admission, without first obtaining an order of the Supreme Court.

What did these two lawyers do to cause the wrath of our Court? They were both involved in mortgage modification schemes in multiple states. Naderi was licensed in California and provided legal services operation as the Pacific National Law Center (PNLC).

Ochoa was previously licensed in Florida but was disbarred in 2018 for misconduct involving lack of competence, failure to keep clients’ property safe, and conduct involving dishonest, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. He operated a solo practice and entered into an agreement with a non-attorney owned company (NVA) to market his legal services on the internet. Through NVA’s advertisements, he specifically targeted South Carolina residents seeking to negotiate modifications of their home loans.

Let’s look at just one example of the activities of these lawyers from the Naderi case. The Court refers to this scenario as “The J. H. Matter.” In December of 2013, Naderi was hired by J.H. a South Carolina resident, homeowner and veteran, to assist him in negotiating a modification of his home loan. Individuals from PNLC assured J.H. that the firm could get his loan modified and decrease his mortgage payments by securing both a balance reduction and a lower interest rate. J.H. was promised that the firm would work diligently and return his telephone calls within 48 hours.

J.H. signed several forms provided by PNLC staff members, including an “Attorney Client Retainer Agreement” and a “Third Party Authorization and Release Form”. The release form permitted the lender to discuss the loan with PNLC. Naderi was specifically named as the individual permitted to discuss the loan on behalf of J.H., but, interestingly, the form listed Naderi’s title as “Paralegal”.

The retainer agreement provided that, in exchange for $2,995, PNLC would provide “legal services” including “representation…for negotiation and resolution of disputes with current lender(s) regarding the subject real property and mortgage loan(s).” But litigation services were excluded from the scope of representation.

The agreement also provided that the fees were not conditioned on the outcome of the case and restricted J.H.’s ability to cancel the agreement and seek a refund after five days. Disputes arising after five days were to be handled by the guidelines and standards adopted by the California Bar.

In January, February and March of 2014, J.H. made payments totaling $2,995 via counter deposits into PNLC’s bank account. PNLC staff members told J.H. not to worry, that the law firm would secure the loan modification, and his lender would not take his home. Shortly after making his last payment, J.H. began experiencing difficulties reaching anyone at PNLC. PNLC never obtained a loan modification or offered J.H. any other solutions.

J.H. received notice of a foreclosure hearing, but he was unable to reach anyone at PNLC. J.H. appeared by himself and eventually hired another lawyer to file bankruptcy.

J.H. testified that he was unaware of any contact PNLC made with his lender. He believed he had been scammed and thought the wrongdoer should be in jail or disbarred.

Other matters were similarly described in both cases. It sounds as if the services were to collect fees only, and not to, in fact, perform legal work. The fact that these schemes cause delays when homeowners are in trouble with their loans make them particularly egregious. Dirt lawyers who are legitimately licensed by the South Carolina Supreme Court should be aware of these schemes and should be in a position to advise clients to avoid them with a vengeance!

* In the Matter of Naderi, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27881 (April 24, 2019); In the Matter of Ochoa, South Carolina Supreme Court Opinion 27881, (April 24, 2019).