Law Firm Accused Of Using Non-Lawyers In Foreclosure Filings, Charging Homeowners Attorney Fees

[Amerigo Vespucci]

December 04, 2010 02:00 PM
Law Firm Accused Of Using Non-Lawyers In Foreclosure Filings, Charging Homeowners Attorney Fees

By Susie Madrak

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/law-firm-accused-using-non-lawyers-fo

It seems that our legal system, already heavily weighted in favor of the powerful, is completely out of control when it comes to these mortgage foreclosures. As Matt Taibbi recently pointed out, judges handling foreclosure cases give kneejerk credence to the attorneys, to the point where they can't even be bothered to check the filings to make sure they're in order. It took a bankruptcy judge to call this law firm to task.

Now, defrauding the homeowners is probably perfectly okay with the establishment. But I find it hard to believe they'll get away with impersonating lawyers!

PITTSBURGH (AP) — A Philadelphia law firm used nonlawyers to file untold numbers of mortgage foreclosures across the state and fraudulently collected attorney's fees that caused people to lose their homes in cases which should be legally nullified, a Pittsburgh lawyer claims in a lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes as a bankruptcy court judge, also in Pittsburgh, has given the same firm, Goldbeck, McCafferty & McKeever, until the end of business Friday to self-report to the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Thomas Agresti filed two opinions castigating the firm and the lender it represented, Countrywide Home Loans, in a foreclosure that led a Pittsburgh-area woman to file for bankruptcy in 2001.

The judge determined a Goldbeck attorney knowingly gave the court phony lender documents to bolster its foreclosure claim saying "the evidence that (the attorney) lied was considerable."

Attorneys at the Goldbeck firm have not returned calls for comment from The Associated Press on Judge Agresti's findings or the 78-page lawsuit filed last month by Patrick Loughren.

Loughren told The Associated Press he could not comment on his lawsuit, but said the document made clear his reason for filing it.

The lawsuit spells out two broad goals: defending the legal profession, and pursuing a remedy for those facing foreclosure and those who have already paid attorneys fees or lost their homes in actions filed by the Philadelphia firm.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

1. SOP for attorneys.

Guaranteed

[TexasObserver]

3. No, it isn't, which is why the judge told them to turn themselves in to the Bar.

[ThomCat]

2. Isn't the time of paralegals ALWAYS billed as attorneys by

most, if not all law firms?

I thought it was common practice to bill every possible hour at the attorney rate in order to maximize billing. It is unethical, and probably illegal, but everyone knows that it happens and looks the other way.

Just like everyone looks the other way when attorney's billable hours somehow add up something higher than 120 hours in a week. Yes, time is being billed to several clients simultaneously, and time per task is routinely grossly overestimated to pad those numbers.

It is all just acceptable tricks of the trade to keep the income high. Of course, you aren't supposed to ask, "acceptable to whom?"

[TexasObserver]

4. Billing for paralegals is both legal and ethical.

It's part of the agreement on the front end that the lawyer will use other lawyers and staff, and that some of them will be charged on an hourly basis.

I'm not sure where you got the idea it is either illegal or unethical, but that is 100% wrong. It is legal to use them for the things they're qualified and authorized to do, and not legal to claim they're attorneys and can make court appearances or hold themselves out as lawyers. Misusing them is illegal and unethical, but using them and billing for them is not.

I'm not sure where you think there's a lawyer billing over 120 hours a week. The norm is about 40 hours a week, 2000 hours a year.

FYI: a judge has to approve attorneys fees which are submitted for payment, and those hours must be proved up as both reasonable and necessary. In bankruptcy court, such scrutiny by the judge is significant, and the fees awarded are often much less than the particular attorney submits and proves up.