Attorneys Incur License Suspensions For Fee Sharing, Other Violations In Arrangement With Loan Modification, Foreclosure Rescue Operator

Two relatively recent decisions from the Ohio Supreme Court illustrate how attorneys who allow themselves to be pimped out by upfront fee loan modification firms and foreclosure rescue operators can find themselves in hot water.

The attorneys accepted client referrals from WJW Enterprises, an organization that purported to assist persons trying to keep their homes after foreclosure proceedings had been filed against them. Some of the clients referred by WJW to the attorneys were in need of advice and representation on bankruptcy matters. The president of WJW was James Warsing,(1) who was not an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio.

Among the violations of the attorneys' Code of Professional Responsibility were findings that the homeowners never paid the attorneys any money but rather, paid money to WJW, who passed along some of it to the attorneys providing the legal services, and pocketed the rest.

The Ohio high court made this observation on the need to prohibit this type of arrangement:

• [T]he prohibition against sharing legal fees with nonlawyers benefits the public by (1) limiting the possibility that a nonlawyer will interfere with the exercise of a lawyer's professional judgment in representing a client and (2) ensuring that the total fee paid by the client is not unreasonably high. ABA Comm. on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Formal Op. 356 (1988). The prohibition also limits the possibility that a nonlawyer will be motivated to engage in the improper solicitation of business for a lawyer.

For more, see:

• Disciplinary Counsel v. Simonelli, 113 Ohio St. 3d 215; 2007 Ohio 1535; 863 N.E.2d 1039; 2007 Ohio LEXIS 851 (2007),(2)
• Disciplinary Counsel v. Stranke, 110 Ohio St.3d 247, 2006 Ohio 4357, 852 N.E.2d 1202 (2006).

For another Ohio attorney disciplinary action involving a different loan modification, foreclosure rescue operator using a similar compensation arrangement with the lawyers involved, see:

• Cincinnati Bar Assn. v. Mullaney, 119 Ohio St.3d 412, 2008-Ohio-4541 (2008).

(1) On December 12, 2007, the Ohio Feds hit Warsing with a Federal mail fraud indictment in connection with the activities where he allegedly promised homeowners he could save their homes from foreclosure. See Indictment - U.S. v. Warsing, and U.S. Attorney News Release. The matter is still pending. At last check, Warsing appears to be in the process of changing his not guilty plea. A hearing is scheduled in an Ohio Federal Court for the end of March.

(2) The attorney in this case also held a license to practice law in New York, which the Committee on Professional Standards in New York moved for and obtained an order imposing reciprocal discipline (see 22 NYCRR 806.19), resulting in a reciprocal suspension for a period of one year, effective as of April 18, 2007, the date of his suspension in Ohio. Matter of Simonelli, 2007 NY Slip Op 6326; 43 A.D.3d 548; 842 N.Y.S.2d 587; 2007 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8834 (NY App. Div. 3d Dept. 2007).