Retainer Agreements Cast Doubt on Whether Law Firms Are Advocates or Are One of the Real Parties in Interest

What changes do you think are necessary in the Federal Truth in Lending Act, FDCPA, RESPA and SEC regulations?

Email your comments to neilfgarfield@hotmail.com

see 501851_2018_Nationstar_Mortgage_L_v_Nationstar_Mortgage_L_EXHIBIT_S__17-1

I completely get how there is immunity for lawyers advocating even bad positions for their clients. Anything less would chill access to the courts. No arguments here.

But when you read the above linked agreement, it seems to me that the law firm has crossed the line from advocate to interested party. The warranties and guarantees are all in reverse for what you would ordinarily expect.

Assume that the claimant is fake and so is the claim. If the claim is foreclosure then success means that a fake claimant is forcing the sale of property and keeping the proceeds. And I say that the people and entities assisting in that effort should not be protected by any immunity or privilege.

In short, if the lawyer is in it for the money and knows there is no claim, then any effort he or she makes is in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme in which the lawyer is one of the beneficiaries. Why should that be protected by any immunity?

I think the current interpretation of litigation immunity is being abused by stockbrokers on Wall Street who call themselves “banks” or “investment banks.”

Just like they do with “originators” who are nothing but shields against Federal and state lending laws, they are hiring lawyers through various conduits who call themselves “Servicers” to sell a nonexistent claim and get an award for defrauding the court, the borrower and even the lawyer representing the borrower.

What do you think?

This the first part of a series that will be devoted to changes that are needed in Federal and State lending, collection and servicing laws.

Posted in Uncategorized |