Larry Gene Noe - #128640
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.
Law Office of Larry G Noe
17621 Irvine Blvd Ste 106
Tustin, CA 92780
|Phone Number:||(714) 730-7084|
|Fax Number:||(714) 730-7085|
||Undergraduate School:||California St Univ Sacramento; CA|
|Sections:||None||Law School:||Western State Univ; CA|
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law in California
State Bar Court Cases
NOTE: The State Bar Court began posting public discipline documents online in 2005. The format and pagination of documents posted on this site may vary from the originals in the case file as a result of their translation from the original format into Word and PDF. Copies of additional related documents in a case are available upon request. Only Opinions designated for publication in the State Bar Court Reporter may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings. For further information about a case that is displayed here, please refer to the State Bar Court's online docket, which can be found at: http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets.aspx
DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The attorney is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.
|Effective Date||Case Number||Description|
|11/23/2012||09-O-16244||Stipulation [PDF] [HTML]|
California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries
Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
November 23, 2012
LARRY GENE NOE [#128640], 63, of Tustin was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation with an actual 60-day suspension, and he was ordered to take the MPRE. The order took effect Nov. 23, 2012.Noe stipulated to five counts of misconduct in two matters.While working as corporate counsel for WLC Mortgage Services/ConquistAmerica, Noe hired the company to process loan modifications under his supervision. Under a fee agreement with one client, Noe could use WLC for loan modification services and the client agreed to indemnify the company against any judgments or claims. The case actually conflicted with WLC/ConquistAmerica.Despite assurances that everything was fine, the client’s home was scheduled for auction by the lender. The client sought a refund of his $2,000 fee from ConquistAmerica, which agreed if the client would free the company “of all responsibility.” More than two years later, Noe paid the client $1,250.Noe stipulated that he represented more than one client whose interests conflicted, he improperly split fees with WLC and he did not promptly refund a client’s advance unearned fee.In a second matter, a client hired Noe to handle a loan modification after hearing a radio advertisement about his company, Loss Mitigation Firm (LMF). Although Noe faxed a borrower’s authorization to the lender to authorize it to speak with LMF, he did no further work and the property faced foreclosure. The client’s co-owner obtained a loan modification on his own.Noe stipulated that he failed to perform legal services competently or promptly refund a $3,000 unearned fee.In mitigation, Noe had no prior discipline and he cooperated with the bar’s investigation.