Case Number(s): 09-O-18340, 09-O-19285, 09-O-19372, 10-O-00579, 10-O-02285, 10-O-02291, 10-O-02293, 10-O-02294, 10-O-02297, 10-O-02299, 10-O-02354, 10-O-02813, 10-O-04302, 10-O-04406,10-O-05303, 10-O-05433, 10-O-05790, 10-O-09325, 11-O-15735
In the Matter of: JEREMY N. ROARK, Bar # 259079, A Member of the State Bar of California, (Respondent).
Counsel For The State Bar: Eli D. Morgenstern, DTC
Office of The Chief Trial Counsel
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, CA 90015-2299
Telephone: (2~ 3) 765-1334
Bar # 190560,
Counsel for Respondent: Phillip Feldman, Law Offices o f Phillip Feldman
14401 Sylvan Street, Suite 200
Van Nuys, CA. 91401
(818) 986-9890
Bar# 40792,
Submitted to: Assigned Judge – State Bar Court Clerk’s Office San Francisco.
Filed: October 13, 2011.
<<not>> checked. PREVIOUS STIPULATION REJECTED
Note: All information required by this form and any additional information which cannot be provided in the space provided, must be set forth in an attachment to this stipulation under specific headings, e.g., "Facts," "Dismissals," "Conclusions of Law," "Supporting Authority," etc.
1. Respondent is a member of the State Bar of California, admitted December 2, 2008.
2. The parties agree to be bound by the factual stipulations contained herein even if conclusions of law or disposition are rejected or changed by the Supreme Court.
3. All investigations or proceedings listed by case number in the caption of this stipulation are entirely resolved by this stipulation and are deemed consolidated. Dismissed charge(s)/count(s) are listed under "Dismissals." The stipulation consists of 26 pages, not including the order.
4. A statement of acts or omissions acknowledged by Respondent as cause or causes for discipline is included under "Facts."
5. Conclusions of law, drawn from and specifically referring to the facts are also included under "Conclusions of Law".
6. The parties must include supporting authority for the recommended level of discipline under the heading "Supporting Authority."
7. No more than 30 days prior to the filing of this stipulation, Respondent has been advised in writing of any pending investigation/proceeding not resolved by this stipulation, except for criminal investigations.
8. Payment of Disciplinary Costs-Respondent acknowledges the provisions of Bus. & Prof. Code §§6086.10 & 6140.7. (Check one option only):
<<not>> checked. Until costs are paid in full, Respondent will remain actually suspended from the practice of law unless relief is obtained per rule 5.130, Rules of Procedure.
checked. Costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following <<begin strikeout>>membership years<<end strikeout>>: Five (5) billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order. (Hardship, special circumstances or other good cause per rule 5.132, Rules of Procedure.) If Respondent fails to pay any installment as described above, or as may be modified by the State Bar Court, the remaining balance is due and payable immediately.
<<not>> checked. Costs are waived in part as set forth in a separate attachment entitled "Partial Waiver of Costs".
<<not>> checked. Costs are entirely waived.
Additional aggravating circumstances:
Additional mitigating circumstances:
Attachment language (if any):
IN THE MATTER OF: JEREMY N. ROARK, State Bar No. 259079
STATE BAR COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-O-18340, 09-O-19285, 09-O-19372, 10-O-00579, 10-O-02285, 10-O-02291, 10-O-02293, 10-O-02294, 10-O-02297, 10-O-02299, 10-O-02354, 10-O-02813, 10-O-04302, 10-O-04406,10-O-05303, 10-O-05433, 10-O-05790, 10-O-09325, 11-O-15735
FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
Respondent admits that the following facts are true and that he is culpable of violations of the specified Rules of Professional Conduct.
General Background
1. The facts under this heading apply to all of the above captioned matters.
2. One, December 2, 2008, Respondent was admitted to the State Bar. Respondent was approximately 26 years old.
|
3. On February 16, 2009, Respondent was hired by the owners of National Loan Resolutions Law Center (“NLRLC"). Respondent’s title was "house counsel." NLRLC was an entity owned and operated by two non-attorneys, one of whom was a Department of Real Estate licensee. At all relevant times to the stipulated facts herein, Respondent was the only member of the State Bar of California employed by NLRLC.
4. At all times relevant to the stipulate facts herein, NLRLC purported to provide loan modification services to the public. But, as Respondent discovered towards the end of his approximately eight month tenure with NLRLC, the owners of NLRLC promised to provide helpful modification Services for their clients, but instead performed limited modification services, and ultimately pocketed the advance fees paid by their clients instead of paying the loan negotiators.
5. Respondent’s initial, nominal function at NLRLC was to advise the owners. The function was expanded to reviewing modification files and providing supervision and guidance to NLRLC’s staff of 5 to 9 negotiators who each maintained a case load of over 100 files. Respondent was not able to review every file because they were too numerous. In fact, unbeknownst to Respondent, the owners of NLRLC hired Respondent because they needed to employ an attorney in order to enable them to collect advanced fees from their clients.
6. At all times relevant to the stipulated facts herein, attorneys could collect advanced fees for loan modification services. However, a loan modification company could not unless it had an advanced fee agreement approved by the Department of Real Estate ("DRE"), a no-objection letter was issued by the DRE, and the advanced fees were handled as trust funds. Respondent was not aware of these requirements. NLRLC did not have an advanced fee agreement approved by the DRE, and therefore could not legally charge clients advanced fees for loan modification services. Because of his inexperience, Respondent made no inquiry into whether NLRLC had an approved fee agreement before he began working for the owners of the company. NLRLC collected advanced fees for loan modification Services and represented that they had an attorney working with them. Respondent’s employment permitted NLRLC to justify accepting advanced fees, and to place those fees in a general account, discussed below, instead of maintaining them in trust for their clients pending the completion of the loan modification.
7. The owners of NLRLC created a general account in which all of the advanced fees paid by NLRLC s clients were deposited. Although Respondent was the only signatory on the account and the only person who could issue checks from the account, the owners of NLRLC, or their agents, administered the account. Respondent never made any deposits to, or withdrawals from, the general account. The account was under the complete control of the owners of NLRLC and their agents.
8. Pursuant to his agreement with the owners of NLRLC, Respondent was supposed to be paid $100 for every file processed by NLRLC and reviewed by him. The owners of NLRLC set up a separate bank account for Respondent where they were supposed to deposit $100 for every file processed and reviewed by Respondent. After he resigned from NLRLC, Respondent learned that the owners did not do so. Respondent used the account and the debit card associated with it in any way that he chose since he considered the funds his "paycheck."
9. The owners represented to Respondent that if Respondent determined that all attempts to modify a client’s loan had been exhausted and no loan modification was offered by the lender, NLRLC would provide a refund to the client if the client had cooperated through the process, and NLRLC had so promised in writing. However, Respondent never had the authority or ability to process the actual fee refund.
10. At the time that he was hired by the owners of NLRLC and throughout the approximately eight (8) months that he worked for them, Respondent was neither a trained nor skilled negotiator, had no experience rendering loan modification services and had little, or no knowledge, of the legal aspects of loan modification. Respondent also had no training, skill, or expertise in bankruptcy law, other than his post-employment research and self, on-the-job training.
11. A no time during his employment with NLRLC did Respondent possess the learning and skill required to competently serve as house counsel for the owners of NLRLC. At no time was Respondent able to competently serve NLRLC’s clients by assisting the negotiators with negotiating a sustainable loan modification that was in the client’s best interest. Further, NLRLC had too many loan modification files for Respondent to review. Further still, Respondent’s youth and inexperience prevented him from understanding at the time that he was hired, and for approximately eight months thereafter, that he was being used for his law license by the owners of NLRLC, and that NLRLC performed limited services, and mostly converted the advanced fees paid by their clients.
12. In September 2009, Respondent demanded that the owners of NLRLC establish a trust account for the deposit of advanced fees paid by NLRLC’s clients. The owners of NLRLC did not comply with Respondent’s demand.
13. By October 2009, Respondent had reviewed loans which he determined were not going to be modified. He identified the clients and requested that the owners of NLRLC provide them with refunds. In October 2009, Respondent also discovered that the owners of NLRLC were not honoring the refund policy, which some, but not all, home owners had been promised and agreed to. Respondent also discovered that the owners stopped paying the negotiators and thus the negotiators were not completing their loan modification assignments for NLRLC’s clients.
14. In October 2009, Respondent sought legal counsel; and on October 14, 2009, Respondent terminated his employment with NLRLC. Respondent directed the owners to return all original files to the clients and keep copies of the files in order to be able to complete their pre-paid assignments. Respondent a so directed the owners to refund fees to the clients, including all of the complainants herein. In October 2009, Respondent filed a criminal complaint against the owners of NLRLC. Respondent also filed complaints against the owners of NLRLC with the DRE and the California Attorney General.
15. After he terminated his employment with NLRLC, Respondent was unable to obtain any of the complete client files from NLRLC. NLRLC ceased operations in or about October 2009.
16. Prior to terminating his employment with NLRLC, Respondent was able to obtain $13,078 from the general account in which he was the signatory. Respondent placed the funds in trust. Respondent shall use those funds to refund in equal amounts the complainants herein. Thus, each of the 19 complainants shall receive $688 ($13,078/19).
Case No. 11-O-15735
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On June 2, 2009, Paul and Judith Amos (collectively, the "Amoses"), employed NLRLC to assist them with loan modifications on four rental properties. The Amoses paid NLRLC a total of $7,980 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by the Amoses to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised the Amoses a 100% money back refund if his lender did not modify the loans for the respective properties.
4. Thereafter, NLRLC performed no services of value for the Amoses, including, but not limited, to negotiating and obtaining a loan modification of any of the loans for the respective rental properties.
5. Prior to his resignation, Respondent requested that the owners of NLRLC provide the Amoses with a refund of the advanced fees that they paid to NLRLC. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide the Amoses with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that they paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of the Amoses, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-00579
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On May 2, 2009, Kenneth Kuegeman ("Kuegeman") employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification of his first and second home mortgages. Kuegeman paid NLRLC $3,500 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Kuegeman to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Kuegeman a 100% money back refund if his lender did not modify his home loan.
4. Thereafter, NLRLC performed no services of value for Kuegeman, including, but not limited, to negotiating and obtaining a loan modification of his two home loans.
5. On July 14, 22, 29, 2009, and August 10, 11, 17, 24, 2009, Kuegeman sent e-mails to Respondent inquiring about the status of the loan modifications. Respondent received the e-mails. Respondent did not respond to them.
6. On November 3, 2009, Kuegeman terminated NLRLC and demanded a refund. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Kuegeman with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Kuegeman, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional conduct.
By failing to respond to Kuegeman’s status inquiries, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case NO. 10-O-02285
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On April 6, 2009, Rebecca Cadena ("Cadena") employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home loan. On April 6, 2009, Cadena paid NLRLC $3,500 in advanced fees for their services. [Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Cadena to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Cadena a 100% money back refund if her lenders did not modify her home loans.
4. Thereafter, NLRLC performed no services of value for Cadena, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Cadena with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
5. Cadena negotiated a modification of her home loan on her own. But, Respondent assisted her with stopping the foreclosure sale of her home.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Cadena, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after Iris employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-02291
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On May 1, 2009, Dale Glasscock ("Glasscock") employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification his first and second home mortgages. Glasscock paid NLRLC $2,500 in advanced fees for their services. The owners of NLRLC never made Respondent aware of Glasscock and Respondent did not know Sat Glasscock was a client of NLRLC.
3. At or about the time that he employed NLRLC, an employee of NLRLC stated to Glasscock that his mortgage payments would be reduced, and that after paying NLRLC the advanced fee he would not be required to pay two months of his mortgage payments.
4. NLRLC promised Glasscock a 100% money back refund if his lenders did not modify his home loans.
5. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Glasscock, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification of either of his two home loans. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Glasscock with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Glasscock, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-02293
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On May 5, 2009, Traci Breiner ("Breiner") employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home mortgage. Breiner paid NLRLC $2,500 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Breiner to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Breiner a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Breiner, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Breiner with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without at possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience o best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Breiner, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No 10-O-02294
Facts
1. The actual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporate~ by reference.
2. On May 5, 2009, Annette Valencia ("Valencia") employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home mortgage. The owners of NLRLC never made Respondent aware of Valencia and Respondent did not know that Valencia was a client of NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Valencia a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Valencia, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Valencia with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Valencia, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to confirm their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-02297
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On May 18, 2009, Krystyna Baty ("Baty") employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home mortgage. Baty paid NLRLC $2,995 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Baty to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Baty a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan. An employee of NLRLC also stated that NLRLC would negotiate a 2-3% interest rate reduction in 60 to 90 days.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Baty, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Baty with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience Io best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Baty, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No 10-O-02299
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On April 8, 2009, Jason Lund ("Lund") employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification of his home mortgage. Lund paid NLRLC $2,000 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Lund to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Lund a 100% money back refund if his lender did not modify his home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Lund, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Lund with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC.
5. Prior to his resignation, Respondent requested that the owners of NLRLC provide Lund with a refund of the; advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Lund with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Lund, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-02354
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On April 20, 2009, Thomas Sweetman ("Sweetman") employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification his home mortgage. Sweetman paid NLRLC $2,750 in advanced fees for their services. The owners of NLRLC never made Respondent aware of Sweetman and Respondent did not know that Sweetman was a client of NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Sweetman a 100% money back refund if his lender did not modify his home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Sweetman, including, but not limited to, negotiating an obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Sweetman with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Sweetman, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-02813
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. Or. July 27, 2009, Debra Ahem ("Ahem") employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home mortgage. Ahem paid NLRLC $2,400 in advanced fees for their services. Ahem was told by an employee of NLRLC that the loan modification process would be completed in 60 to 90 days. The owners of NLRLC never made Respondent aware of Ahem and Respondent did not know that Ahem was a client of NLRLC.
3. NLRLC also promised Ahem a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Ahem, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Ahem with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Ahem, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of role 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-04302
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On February 26, 2009, Janene Woolley ("Woolley") employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home mortgage. Woolley paid NLRLC $2,465 in advanced fees for their services. The owners of NLRLC never made Respondent aware of Woolley, Respondent did not know that Ahem was a client of NLRLC, and the general account was not yet opened.
3. NLRLC promised Woolley a 100% money, back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Woolley, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Woolley with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, wit bout possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Woolley, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-04406
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On March 6, 2009, Wendy Montanio (Montanio) employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home mortgage, as well as a modification of a mortgage on a rental property that she owned. Montanio paid NLRLC $5,985 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Montanio to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Montanio a 100% money back refund if her lenders did not modify her loans.
4. On August 4, 2009, an employee of NLRLC telephoned Montanio and advised her that NLRLC was able to negotiate a reduction of either of her loans.
5. Thereafter, Montanio telephoned Respondent on several occasions and left messages inquiring about a refund.
6. On August 27, 2009, Montanio received a telephone message from Respondent asking her to call him back Thereafter, Montanio telephoned Respondent on several occasions and left messages inquiring about a refund. Respondent received the messages. Respondent did not respond to them.
7. In October 2009, Respondent mailed a letter to Montanio advising him that he was no longer employed by NLRLC.
8. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Montanio, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining loan modifications. Prior to his resignation, Respondent requested that the owners of NLRLC provide Montanio with a refund of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Montanio with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Montanio, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to respond to Montanio’s requests for a refund, Respondent failed to respond promptly to reasonable status inquiries of a client in willful violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m).
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-05303
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On April 6, 2009, Debra Peterson ("Peterson") employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home mortgage. Peterson paid NLRLC $3,000 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Peterson to NLRLC. The owners of NLRLC never made Respondent aware of Peterson and Respondent did not know that Peterson was a client of NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Peterson a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Peterson, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Peterson with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Peterson, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of role 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-05433
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On ’March 16, 2009, Giovanni Bellante ("Bellante") employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification of his home mortgage. Bellante paid NLRLC $2,695 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Bellante to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Bellante a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan.
4. At the time that Bellante employed NLRLC, and throughout his employment of NLRLC, he was not delinquent on his mortgage.
5. On June 17, 2009, an employee of NLRLC stated to Bellante that his lender would not process a loan modification unless he was delinquent. Bellante refused to stop making payments on his mortgage.
6. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Bellante, including, but not limited to, negotiating anal obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Bellante with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC. Prior to his resignation, Respondent requested that the owners of NLRLC provide Bellante with a refund of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC.
7. On December 30, 2009, Bellante sent an e-mail to Respondent requesting a refund of the fees that Bellante had paid to NLRLC.
8. On January 2, 2010, Respondent responded to Bellante’s email and advised him to make a complaint against the owners of NLRLC with various governmental agencies. Respondent also attached to the e-mail a~ letter that he previously mailed to Bellante in November 2009.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Bellante, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-05790
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On May 9, 2009, Ingrid Kraft ("Kraft") employed NLRLC to assist her with a modification of her home mortgage. Kraft paid NLRLC $2,500 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Kraft to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Kraft a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Kraft, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Kraft with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Kraft, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional
Conduct.
By fairing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 10-O-09325
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On September 2, 2009, Amanollah Fawadi ("Fawadi") employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification of his home mortgage. Fawadi paid NLRLC $2,500 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Fawadi to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Fawadi a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify her home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Fawadi, including, but not limited to, negotiating anal obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Fawadi with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that she paid to NLRLC.
5. In November 2009, Fawadi contacted Respondent. Prior to the contact, Respondent did not know that Fawadi was a client of NLRLC. Respondent offered Fawadi a refund of $500.
6. Thereafter, Fawadi employed an attorney to assist him with the modification of his home loan, and to stop the foreclosure sale of his home. Fawadi also requested that the attorney assist him with obtaining a refund from NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Kraft, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 09-O-18340
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On April 29, 2009, David Musayev ("Musayev") employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification of his home mortgage. Musayev paid NLRLC $2,500 in advanced fees for their services. The owners of NLRLC never made Respondent aware of Musayev and Respondent did not know that Musayev was a client of NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Musayev a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify his home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Musayev, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Musayev with a refund If any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience, to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Musayev, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 09-O-19285
Facts.
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On September 25, 2009, Fernando Galvez ("Galvez") employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification of his home mortgage. Galvez paid NLRLC $3,600 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Galvez to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Galvez a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify his home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Galvez, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did the owners of NLRLC provide Musayev with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to NLRLC.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Musayev, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Case No. 09-O-19372
Facts
1. The factual statements in paragraphs 1 through 16 under the heading "General Background" are incorporated by reference.
2. On August 20, 2009, Ramon Fuentes ("Fuentes’) employed NLRLC to assist him with a modification of his home mortgage. Fuentes paid NLRLC $1,395 in advanced fees for their services. Respondent received $100 of the advanced fees paid by Fuentes to NLRLC. Fuentes was a real estate licensee who referred at least twenty clients to NLRLC.
3. NLRLC promised Fuentes a 100% money back refund if her lender did not modify his home loan.
4. NLRLC did not perform any services of value for Fuentes, including, but not limited to, negotiating and obtaining a loan modification. At no time did NLRLC provide Fuentes with a refund of any portion of the advanced fees that he paid to them.
Conclusions of Law
By accepting the house counsel position with NLRLC, and then continuing his employment with NLRLC, without possessing knowledge of the legal aspects of loan modification, or the learning, skill, and experience to best represent the interests of NLRLC’s clients, including the best interests of Fuentes, Respondent failed to perform competently in willful violation of rule 3-110(A) of Professional Conduct.
By failing to recognize until eight months after his employment as house counsel that the owners of NLRLC were potentially violating laws imputable to the organization, and by failing to advise the owners to conform their conduct to the law, Respondent failed to competently represent an organization in willful violation of rule 3-600 of the Rules of Professional Conduct
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
1. Multiple Acts of Wrongdoing.
Respondent’s misconduct involves multiple clients and multiple acts of misconduct. (Std.1.2(b)(ii).)
2. Harm
The clients of NLRLC were harmed by Respondent’s misconduct.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
1. Candor and Cooperation
Respondent self reported to the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel ("OCTC") prior to the filing of any complaints against him by the complaining witnesses herein. Respondent is also entitled to mitigation for entering into this stipulation. (Std. 1.2(e)(v).)
OTHER FACTORS IN CONSIDERATION.
Respondent has been participating in the Lawyer Assistance Program for almost two years.
AUTHORITIES SUPPORTING DISCIPLINE.
1. Standards
The stipulated discipline falls within the range of discipline set forth the in the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct.
"The primary purposes of disciplinary proceedings… are the protection of the public, the courts[,] and the legal profession; the maintenance of high professional standards by attorneys[;] and the preservation of public confidence in the legal profession." (Std 1.3.)
Standard 1.6(a) states that where two or more acts of professional misconduct are charged and different sanctions are prescribed by the standards for the acts, the sanction imposed shall be the more or most severe of the different applicable sanctions.
Standards 2.4(b), 2.6(a), and 2.10 of the Standards for Attorney Sanctions for Professional Misconduct (“Standards") apply to this proceeding.
Standard 2.4(b) provides, in pertinent part that culpability of a member for willful failure to perform shall result in reproval or suspension depending upon the extent of the misconduct and the degree of harm to the client. Here, although Respondent failed to perform on behalf of multiple clients, the parties submit that it would be manifestly unjust to apply Standard 2.4(a). Respondent committed the misconduct described herein between February 2009 and October 2009.
Respondent committed the misconduct herein within the first year of his admission to the State Bar. Respondent acknowledges had that he used poor judgment in deciding to work with the owners of NLRLC. Respondent no longer represents clients requesting assistance with loan modifications. The parties submit that a six month actual suspension, along with the other terms of probation herein, adequately serves the purposes of discipline.
Standard 2.6(a) provides that culpability of a member of a violation of Business and Professions Code section 6068(m) shall result in disbarment or suspension depending upon the gravity of the offense or the harm, if any, to the victim.
Standard 2.10 applies to violations of any rule or statute not specified under any other standard. Standard 2.1 requires reproval or suspension according to the gravity of the offense or harm to the victim, and with due regard for the purposes of imposing discipline.
OTHER CONDITIONS.
Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of the discipline herein, Respondent shall make restitution to complainants herein in the sum of $688. (See, General Background, paragraph 16, supra.)
STATE BAR ETHICS SCHOOL.
Because Respondent has agreed to attend State Bar Ethics School as part of this stipulation, she may receive Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit upon the satisfactory completion of State Bar Ethics School.
PENDING PROCEEDINGS.
The disclosure date referred to on page 2, paragraph A(7), was September 1, 2011.
COSTS OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS.
Respondent acknowledges that the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel has informed him that as of September 1, 2011, the prosecution costs in this matter are approximately $19,440.24. The costs are to be paid in equal amounts prior to February 1 for the following five billing cycles following the effective date of the Supreme Court Order.
If Respondent fails to pay any installment within the time provided herein or as may be modified by the State Bat Court pursuant to section 6086.10, subdivision (c), the remaining balance of the costs is due and payable immediately and enforceable both as provided in Business and Professions Code section 6140.7 and as a money judgment unless relief has been granted under the Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. (Rules Proc. of State Bar, rule 286.)
Respondent further acknowledges that should this stipulation
be rejected or should relief from the stipulation be granted, the costs in this
matter may increase due to the cost of further proceedings.
Case Number(s): 09-O-18340, 09-O-19285, 09-O-19372, 10-O-00579, 10-O-02285, 10-O-02291, 10-O-02293, 10-O-02294, 10-O-02297, 10-O-02299, 10-O-02354, 10-O-02813, 10-O-04302, 10-O-04406,10-O-05303, 10-O-05433, 10-O-05790, 10-O-09325, 11-O-15735
In the Matter of: JEREMY N. ROARK
By their signatures below, the parties and their counsel, as applicable, signify their agreement with each of the recitation and each of the terms and conditions of this Stipulation Re Facts, Conclusions of Law and Disposition.
Signed by:
Respondent: Jeremy N. Roark
Date: 09/16/2011
Respondent’s Counsel: Phillip Feldman
Date: 09/29/2011
Deputy Trial Counsel: Eli D. Morgenstern
Date: 09/29/2011
Case Number(s): 11-O-15735, 10-O-00579, 10-O-02285, 10-O-02291, 10-O-02293, 10-O-02294, 10-O-02297, 10-O-02299, 10-O-02354, 10-O-02813, 10-O-04302, 10-O-04406, 10-O-05303, 10-O-05433, 10-O-05790, 10-O-09325, 09-O-18340, 09-O-19285, 09-O-19372
In the Matter of: JEREMY N. ROARK
Finding the stipulation to be fair to the parties and that it adequately protects the public, IT IS ORDERED that the requested dismissal of counts/charges, if any is GRANTED without prejudice, and:
<<not>> checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED and the DISCIPLINE RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
checked. The stipulated facts and disposition are APPROVED AS MODIFIED as set forth below, and the DISCIPLINE IS RECOMMENDED to the Supreme Court.
<<not>> checked. All Hearing dates are vacated.
1. Respondent waives any objection to payment by the State Bar Client Security Fund upon a claim by the complaining witnesses named in the NDC for the principal amount of restitution.
2. On page 2, section A(8) the years "2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017" are added to the costs.
The parties are bound by the stipulation as approved unless: 1) a motion to withdraw or modify the stipulation, filed within 15 days after service of this order, is granted; or 2) this court modifies or further modifies the approved stipulation. (See rule 5.58 (E) & (F), Rules of Procedure.) The effective date of this disposition is the effective date of the Supreme Court order herein, normally 30 days after the file date. (See rule 9.18(a), California Rules of Court.)
Signed by:
Judge of the State Bar Court: Patricia McElroy
Date: October 13, 2011
[Rules Proc. of State Bar; Rule 5.27(B); Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a(4)]
I am a Case Administrator of the State Bar Court of California. I am over the age of eighteen and not a party to the within proceeding. Pursuant to standard court practice, in the City and County of San Francisco on October 13, 2011, I deposited a true copy of the following document(s):
STIPULATION RE FACTS, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DISPOSITION AND ORDER APPROVING
in a sealed envelope for collection and mailing on that date as follows:
checked. by first-class mail, with postage thereon fully prepaid, through the United States Postal Service at San Francisco, California, addressed as follows:
PHILLIP FELDMAN
LAW OFFICES OF PHILLIP FELDMAN
14401 SYLVAN ST STE 200
VAN NUYS, CA 91401
checked. by interoffice mail through a facility regularly maintained by the State Bar of California addressed as follows:
Eli Morgenstern, Office of Enforcement, Los Angeles
I hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 13, 2011.
Signed by:
George Hue
Case Administrator
State Bar Court