This is the same Jerry Brown that was "Shocked!" at Countrywide (more than once) - all the while his sister was on the Board of Directors and he dragged that investigation out for years and years.
And now, here comes a high-profile suit. These people were more than just clever - this one is outright diabolical but unlike the slow approach with Countrywide, this one just started back in early 2009.
US LOAN AUDITORS, INC., a California .
corporation; MY US LEGAL SERVICES,
INC., a California corporation; JAMES
DONALD SANDISON, an individual;
SHANE BARKER, an individual; JEFFREY
ALLEN PULVINO, an individual; SHARON .L. LAPIN, an individual; JONATHAN GREGG STEIN, an individual;. and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
When homeowners contact Defendant US LOAN AUDITORS by phone or in person, they speak with sales agents who identify themselves as "fraud investigators" and/or "licensed fraud investigators." These sales agents are not attorneys or experts in fraud investigations, and are not licensed to conduct investigations' of any kind. Consistent with the claims and representations made on US LOAN AUDITORS' websites, mailers, marketing materials, and other advertisements, clients are told that a forensic loan audit will provide them with "legal leverage" to stop foreclosure and obtain a loan modification.
Homeowners who agree to purchase a forensic audit from Defendant-US LOAN AUDITORS 'are required to sign a contract called a "Service Provider Agreement." The contract requires consumers to pay an up front fee equal to one percent of the homeowner's original mortgage balance for the forensic audit. The cost of a forensic audit can typically range between $2,000 and $6,000, but some clients have paid Defendant US LOAN AUDITORS as much as $20,025 for just the forensic audit. There is no correlation between the price of the audit and the amount of work required to complete the audit. Non-Attorney Defendants' "fraud investigators" are paid on a commission basis only, and typically collect up to 50 percent ofthe amount charged less administrative expenses, but only when they are able to sell clients both the audit and "legal , services" provided by Defendant US LEGAL SERVICES, as alleged below. This arrangement provides Non-Attorney Defendants' "fraud investigators" with an incentive to do everything possible to sell "legal services" to clients who have already purchased forensic audits.
The Non-Attorney Defendants and their sales agents also routinely tell clients that their attorneys "specialize in debt negotiation, debt settlement, predatory lending, loan modification, litigation, and consumer injury." In fact, the attorneys recruited for these cases frequently have little or no relevant experience, and Defendant LAPIN, who received over 130 referrals from Defendant US LEGAL SERVICES, was previously sanctioned by the State Bar for failing to competently perform legal services on behalf of her clients.
Non-Attorney Defendants and their sales agents have also claimed to achieve a high rate of success because of Defendant SANDISON's background as an attorney, real estate broker, and former deputy sheriff, and have told clients that they can trust him, that he will personally represent them, and that he is personally acquainted with federal judges.
After clients start making monthly payments to Defendant US LEGAL
SERVICES, their audit files are "sent" to the "legal" department for processing the lawsuit. The US LEGAL SERVICES "legal" department is staffed and supervised by non-attorney "legal processors," and at least two former California attorneys who are no longer eligible to practice law in California. One former attorney who supervises non-legal staff resigned from the practice
oflaw with State Bar disciplinary charges pending in 2007, and was subsequently convicted of grand theft in connection with his representation of clients in 2008. Another former attorney employed by Defendant US LEGAL SERVICES resigned from the practice of law with State Bar disciplinary charges pending on July 8, 2009.
When clients are being evicted from their homes by the lender or new owner following a trustee sale, they are routinely told that US LEGAL SERVICES does not provide legal services for unlawful detainer cases, and that they must seek outside counsel on their own.