Berger Law Group, P.A./The Resolution Law Group, P.C.
The Berger Law Group, P.A., and
The Resolution Law Group, P.C. were sued on July 29, 2014, in federal court in
Tampa by the Florida and Connecticut Attorney General Offices. The AG
Offices alleged that Berger Law Group, P.A., The Resolution Law Group, P.C.,
Litigation Law, LLC, The Resolution Law Center, LLC, Ian Berger, R. Geoffrey
Broderick, Gary DiGirolamo and David Friedman operated as a legal “enterprise”
that “generated millions of dollars in illegal upfront fees by convincing
consumers to pay for the opportunity to be included as a plaintiff in . . .
so-called ‘mass-joinder’ lawsuits against their mortgage lenders.” The AG
Offices alleged that the “enterprise” falsely promised that the lawsuits would
induce banks to give consumers mortgage modifications or other forms of
foreclosure relief. The AG Offices further alleged that consumers were
charged an upfront fee of typically $6,000, characterized as an “investigation
fee,” and then a $500 monthly maintenance fee. The AG Offices claim that
the actions of the Defendants (i) constitute unfair and deceptive trade
practices that violate Chapter 501, Part II, Florida Statutes and Conn Gen.
Stat., Chapter 735a, and (ii) violate the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services
Rule, 12 CFR Part 1015 (2012) (“Regulation O”). As relief, the AG Offices
requested the appointment of a receiver over the non-individual defendants, a
preliminary and a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants from further
violations of state and federal law, and other relief designed to provide
restitution to consumers. On August 1, 2014, the district
court (Judge James Moody) entered an Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order
with Asset Transfer Restrictions and Partial Asset Freeze, Appointment of
Temporary Receiver, and Other Equitable Relief and Order to Show Cause why a
Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue (the “TRO”). In the TRO, the
Court enjoined the Defendants: ·
from
making representations about the likelihood of their success in obtaining
mortgage loan modifications to reduce consumer’s mortgage payments or interest
rates or help consumers avoid foreclosure; ·
from
making representations concerning the degree of success that any Defendant or
other person has had in performing any mortgage assistance relief service; ·
from
making any representation concerning the nature of any of the Defendant’s
relationship with any mortgage loan holder or servicer; ·
from
making representations concerning the amount of time it would take or is likely
to take to obtain or arrange a renegotiation, settlement, modification, or
other alteration of the terms of any secured or unsecured debt, including
mortgage loans; ·
from
a host of specific actions specifically proscribed by Regulation O, and it also
enjoined the Defendants from asking for or receiving any advance or maintenance
fee for mass-joinder or related suits or proceedings; ·
in
the case of the Defendants Berger Law Group, P.A. and The Resolution Law Group,
P.C. (the “Law Firm Receivership Defendants”), from transferring, spending or
otherwise dissipating any of their Assets, including in particular funds in
their possession, outside of the ordinary course of business; ·
in
the case of the Defendants Litigation Law, LLC and The Resolution Law Center,
LLC (the “Non-Law Firm Receivership Defendants”), from transferring, spending
or otherwise dissipating any of their Assets, including in particular funds in
their possession.
In addition, in the TRO the Court appointed Mark Bernet as receiver for the
Non-Law Firm Receivership Defendants and for the Law Firm Receivership
Defendants (together the “Receivership Defendants”). The Court directed
the Receiver, among other things: (i) to assume full control of the
Receivership Defendants by removing, as he saw fit, any officer, director,
independent contractor, employee or agent from control, management of, or
participation in the affairs of the Receivership Defendants; (ii) to take
exclusive custody, control and possession of all Assets and Documents (both
defined terms) of the Receivership Defendants; (iii) to take all steps
necessary to secure the business premises of the Receivership Defendants; (iv)
to conserve, hold and manage all of the Assets of the Receivership Defendants,
and (v) to perform all acts necessary or advisable to prevent loss, damage or
injury to consumers or creditors of the Receivership Defendants.
Generally, a TRO can remain in effect for only a short period of time before it
must either be dissolved or converted into a preliminary injunction. For this reason, the Court scheduled a
preliminary injunction hearing for August 12, 2014; at that hearing, the
Defendants would have been given an opportunity to contest the allegations made
against them and try to persuade the Court to dissolve the TRO. However,
at a status conference held on August 8, 2014, all defendants (including Berger
Law Group, The Resolution Law Group, Ian Berger and R. Geoffrey Broderick)
announced that they would not contest the entry of a preliminary
injunction. The preliminary injunction, which is not yet entered but
which is expected to be entered within the next couple of days, will continue
the TRO in effect in a broader form. It will
leave the Receiver in place, but it will also effectively shut down Berger Law
Group.
The clients of the Berger Law Group will need to take action to protect
their interests. Many are involved in pending lawsuits, in New
Jersey. Attorney Jeanne Lahiff has signed the lawsuit papers on their
behalf, and she therefore is their attorney for purposes of the
litigation. Clients may wish to make other arrangements, or to
communicate with Ms. Lahiff about their lawsuits. Consumers may choose to hire an attorney
other than Ms. Lahiff. Her e-mail address is rsvp2jeanne@gmail.com. Some frequently asked questions
and their answers are set forth below. ·
Why
did the AG Offices file a lawsuit against Berger Law Group and The Resolution
Law Group? The AG Offices received
numerous complaints from consumers who claimed to have paid several thousand
dollars to The Resolution Law Group or the Berger Law Group for legal
representation against their mortgage lenders and servicers. Consumers claimed that despite receiving
payment the law firms did not file the promised lawsuits on a timely basis or,
if they did file, make satisfactory progress.
Many of the lawsuits that were filed were dismissed, or had parties severed,
because of legal infirmities. The AG
Offices also were aware of complaints from the many other state attorney
general offices. ·
What
is going to happen with my lawsuit? Berger Law Group formed an
"of counsel" relationship with Jeanne Lahiff, an attorney licensed to
practice law in New Jersey. Ms. Lahiff
is the attorney of record in 13 lawsuits pending in New Jersey – all of these
lawsuits are "mass actions," which is to say that there are many
consumers who are "Plaintiffs," or the persons initiating the
lawsuits. Ms. Lahiff remains your
attorney in the litigation, and she is obligated to continue to represent you
unless she obtains an order from the Court permitting her to withdraw as your
counsel. Ms. Lahiff will need to contact
you prior to seeking to withdraw. When
you are contacted, you should speak with Ms. Lahiff about whether you would
like her to continue as your attorney.
Her e-mail address is rsvp2jeanne@gmail.com.
·
What
was the hearing about on August 12, 2014? Under
the federal rules of civil procedure, a Temporary Restraining Order can remain
in effect only for only a limited period of time. The parties against whom the TRO is entered
are entitled to appear in Court and present evidence to demonstrate that the
TRO should be dissolved, while the parties who obtained the TRO are permitted
to present evidence to show that the TRO should be extended. The proceedings are like a trial: The Court listens to the testimony of
witnesses, reviews documents presented into evidence, and considers the
arguments of the attorneys. If the Court
determines that the TRO should not be extended, then it will enter an order
dissolving the TRO. In that case, the
parties against whom the TRO was entered will be permitted to return to their
offices and resume their actions. On the
other hand, if the Court determines that the TRO should remain in place, it
will enter a Preliminary Injunction that, in all likelihood, will be similar to
or identical in effect with the TRO. In
this case, the Defendants announced to the Court that they will not contest the
entry of a preliminary injunction. The
August 12 hearing therefore has been cancelled, and a Preliminary Injunction
will be entered within the next few days. ·
What
about all the money I paid? One of the issues raised by the
AG Offices in their lawsuit concerns the fees charged by The Resolution Law
Group and the Berger Law Group. The AG
Offices assert that the two law firms were not permitted to charge "advance
fees" for this type of representation.
If the lawsuit continues, and if the AG Offices ultimately are
victorious, the Receiver will be charged with attempting to recover as much
money as possible to return to consumers.
The Receiver cautions, however, that in prior cases in which he has
served as receiver, recoveries generally are only a small fraction of the funds
that were paid. ·
Should
I continue to pay my $500 or $495 monthly maintenance fee to Berger Law Group
or The Resolution Law Group? No. ·
What
about my initial $6,000 or $5,000 fee? I
was paying it in installments and I still have some of that left to pay. Should I pay it? No. ·
Where
can I find out more information? Updates will be posted to this
website. Already posted are the Complaint
and the TRO. ·
How
could I have fallen for this? The
case is just beginning, and the Defendants may contest the allegations set out
in the Complaint. The Court could
determine that the Defendants are not engaging in any improper conduct,
although it has already concluded, on a preliminary basis, to the
contrary. Mortgage-related
scams are becoming all too common. An
attorney is a key participant in a mortgage scheme, says Craig Howland, chief
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's financial institutions fraud unit.
That's because being able to point to a lawyer, who is sworn to uphold the law,
"adds legitimacy" to the scam and thus can help ensnare potential
victims. Howland says there are a number
of pending FBI probes concerning lawyers. A number of attorneys also have been held
accountable, through attorney disciplinary cases and civil suits, for operating
foreclosure-rescue businesses that reportedly obtain hefty up-front payments
from owners trying to save their homes, but offer little in return. According to the Huffington Post: "The foreclosure epidemic that swept the U.S. after the financial crash
has ebbed, but the business of preying on struggling homeowners remains a
thriving concern. Since 2010, more than 40,000 homeowners have complained they
were scammed by someone promising to offer foreclosure assistance or help them
with a mortgage modification, according to an
analysis of calls to the HOPE hotline, a resource for
struggling borrowers. "The most costly of these
foreclosure rescue scams -- and now the most pervasive -- involve or are
directed by attorneys, according to the analysis, which was conducted by the
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a group that helps monitor the
hotline. "Last year, nearly 60 percent of
all complaint calls to the HOPE hotline involved a lawyer, the group found.
That's up from 40 percent in 2010. The average loss claimed in schemes
involving or directed by lawyers was $3,601 -- about $800 more than in other
types of deceptions, according to the analysis. "The schemes exploit the needs of
untold thousands of people who have tried to refinance their mortgage under a
government-sponsored program like the Home Affordable Refinance Program (HARP),
only to be met with endless and costly frustrations -- including issues like
lost paperwork and overcharges that in some cases have led to wrongful
foreclosures. A recent report by the California Reinvestment Coalition found that banks
continue to make foreclosure-related mistakes, despite many pledges of reform. "In phone calls and direct
mailings, lawyers claim they can help. 'We have special relationships with
banks that can speed up the approval process,' reads one such ad, cited by the
Federal Trade Commission in a bulletin warning
against such offers. "Recruiting clients to sue banks
as a group is a variation on this scheme. Lawyers promise these "mass
joinder" lawsuits will force banks to stop foreclosures and cut loan
balances. Some borrowers have even been told they could walk away with the
title to their home, free and clear of any debt. All of this could happen in a
matter of months, the attorneys claim. "But such claims are bogus,
advocates warn. 'Run away as fast as you can' if approached to participate in
such a case, said Linda Mullenbach, an attorney at the Lawyers' Committee. "Valid mortgage fraud cases are
filed only after extensive research into often messy and confusing mortgage
documentation. They typically take years to reach a conclusion. ". . . The uptick in involvement by attorneys, who are being
recruited to front what are essentially marketing operations, adds an extra
wrinkle, making it even more difficult for prosecutors, and homeowners, to
sniff out scams." |