How Foreclosure Defense Lawyers Come Under Fire. The Case of Gary Dubin, Esq.

While I have come under heavy fire, it has generally been by uninformed paid trolls on the internet. Nothing bad actually happened to me. That might be because of my relatively high profile.

But if you look at the landscape of foreclosure defense attorneys that were highly successful, you will find that most of them have been subject to some type of discipline, sanctions or threats from the bench. You will see in many cases orders or comments from judges about “vexatious” litigation — which is code for “Don’t bother me. The result is already preordained.”

This is no accident and the Supreme Court of each state should take into account that the banks are successfully asserting enormous pressure to undermine successful foreclosure defense lawyers. This is producing a chilling effect in an already bleak environment where weapons of financial mass destruction are now custom and practice in the marketplace.

Ask any homeowner and you will find that most lawyers decline to take their case at any price. The Dubin case is one example among many that explains why lawyers shy away from confronting the banks about making false claims for fake losses on a nonexistent debt account.

Gary Dubin is an old-time lawyer currently practicing in the state of Hawaii and is a licensed member in good standing of the California bar as well. He has been a leading advocate for consumer rights. Like myself, he has experience on the other side of the fence. Like me, he has had considerable success advocating for homeowners who are facing foreclosure.

Gary Dubin has successfully prosecuted numerous appeals that not only resulted in success for homeowners but actually changed law. He is a lawyer amongst lawyers.

And contrary to what one might assume from reading the Order from the Supreme Court of Hawaii, he has never hurt anyone in his practice of law (except those who opposed him and lost).

At the risk of incurring the wrath of various people close to the levers of power, I wish to say that the current disciplinary action against Dubin is excessive by a wide margin. I say this after litigating and representing lawyers in around 200 of these cases mostly in Florida but also elsewhere.

I do not believe that either the prosecution or the resulting discipline would have ever been as severe as what is pending against Dubin — had it not been for Dubin’s honest success in courts of competent jurisdiction in which he undermined false claims arising from the apparent but nonetheless false claims of securitization (sale) of homeowner debt.

I have also read hundreds of such orders that impose discipline on lawyers. This one appears to have been drafted by clerk with little or no understanding of the facts in Dubin’s case. The order recites conclusions of fact that have never been supported by anything in the record of the prosecution of Attorney Dubin.

Nobody (including me) is perfect. But if there was ever any basis for disciplining Dubin, the case for that was taken to extreme lengths when the court ordered disbarment of an 81 year old lawyer who had repeatedly demonstrated fidelity to the profession. I think the Hawaii Supreme Court owes it to the profession generally to take closer look at his case and reduce discipline to allow Dubin to continue practicing law until his time runs out.

Posted in Uncategorized |