Getting unwanted calls from this company, want to block any further calls.

Definitely a Collection Agency although they are a law firm but they cannot serve any other purpose in life but to harass people and add misery to their already stressed lives by aggressively pursuing to make money for themselves and large corporations. Such as AMX, VISA, Bank of America that received the public funds to survive so these parasites can continue to exist.

Thank you,

I like this

I just received a call from this phone number on my cell phone and I believe they are probably trying to collect a credit card debt which I think was probably only for about $300, if that, from my deceased mother who was on a disability retirment, had no estate and lived with us until she passed away.  I think it is them, as I have received mailings and phone calls addressed to the estate of (my mother's name) trying to collect this amount as well.  I am under no obligation to pay my deceased mother's debts, so I just don't talk to them.  They can call and send mail to my home all they want.  If they want to initiate probate proceedings, more power to them, as the fee to do so in my county is approx. $300, so they would loose everything they are trying to collect, duh.

You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

                                                       -Colonel Walter E. Kurtz

http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2011/07/11/foreclosure-mill-directory-state-by-state/

Also THE DEBTS you are talking about where fabricated by you and the banks you are nothing but a bunch off crooks making money the illigal way and more law suits are coming your way. We the homeowners are sick of your wrong doings and working on having you prosecuted.

Your are nothing but a foreclosure MILL that is listed among the fraudters in bed with the banks doing all the fraud . So you also are commiting fraud upon the court thats the truth.

Here is a great blog on blogger that I came across regarding B&S.

http://whytheaveragefamilyisindebt.blogspot.com/2012/04/average-family-debt-and-junk-debt.html

One--get a real job.
Two--first collect the money from Wall Street
Three--When you're finished with that, call me.

A female paralegal called me wanting information on a person I'm related to (xxx). She asked how to get in touch with xxx; I immediately demanded to know who *she* was and what was the reason for her call. She did not know my name or my relation to xxx; nor did she learn anything from me or about me.

She told me she was with 'Brock and Scott, a legal firm' but would give no further information. I asked how she obtained my number; she stated it was 'on a list' she'd obtained.

After asking her several other pointed questions (why she called, what was her purpose in trying to get hold of xxx, why should I give her any information, how she got this list), she became uncomfortable. I never told her anything useful.

I then told her to scratch my number off of her list, to lose my number, and never call it or me again for any purpose; and as I was hanging up on her, I heard her say 'Yes, sir!'.

That's what you want from people like her: abject submission.

If you get a call from any agent of Brock and Scott, always ask more questions than you answer.

You don't have to be nice. Give them absolutely nothing.

Tell them to never call you again.

I would appreciate a contact for the attorney that took up a case against these people. Could you help me out with such?

Bullhead Investments, The Chanel Group and Comprehensive Legal Solutions are all affiliated (partnered) with Brock and Scott. The first 3 companies are all junk debt buyers. They buy large portfolios for pennies on the dollar and then use Brock and Scott to collect via the courts. Brock and Scott, along with their junk debt cronies have absolutely NO first hand knowledge of any of these debts. Basically, they buy the debts and get a name, an address, a credit account # and an amount. At that point, Darren Woods (whom portrays as the debt custodian for all 3 debt buyers listed above) gets the info and gives it to Brock and Scott to send Miranda Letters. Their Miranda letters are completely illegal as they use phrases like "The original Creditor has retained us" (Deceptive Lie) and refer to the "Original Creditor" as their client (LIE). They will then have an inflated amount due and proceed that if you don't make a payment, they will sue, win, get a default, and then order a Sheriff to go repossess belongs (all against the law).  Darren Woods will send you a pre-canned, fill in the blanks letter stating he "Solemn swears he is the proper custodian of all records" This is NOT proof of validation and verification. As soon as they send that out? They will submit the lawsuit summons to your county's court.

Brock and Scott win 85% just by default! When you get the summons, answer it within 30 days...If you don't? They automatically win, case closed. However, when you answer it? Send it via certified mail to them AND the court.  Ask them to provide you with your original signed contract, statements, when the last payment was made on the account. Send everything CERTIFIED! The next letter you will get is a statement from Brock and Scott/Bullhead/Darren Woods stating that they ARE the proper custodians blah, blah and then they will send out the paperwork for admissions and answers. DO NOT admit to any of it and just fill them out as "no comment or not relevant", then mail it back to them, and the courts. At that point, the next thing they will probably send is a Motion for Summery Judgment. DON"T FRET IT!  This will be a court date that you MUST attend, if you don't? They will win by default.

Keep an eye on the online public index in your home county. Google it or call your court to get the website address. This is very important because Brock and Scott are known for sending motions to the court but NOT sending it to you (the defendant). You will eventually see your court date being processed online AND you will receive the court date info in the mail from the clerk of court. At that point you will have a few weeks to send in last wraps. At this point, write a letter to the court stating

"I have received my court date and see that Brock and Scott is still pursuing legal action without providing me any validation/verification as I previously asked. At this point. I am still without the knowledge that they have the legal right to collect. Now that the hearing is upon us, I want a complete chain of ownership from the original creditor all the way to how it got to Bullhead Investments."

Improvise of course but you have the idea. When you go to court, it will be you and a paralegal. There will most likely NOT be an attorney from Brock and Scott. Richard Jackson hides behind a pen and his desk.
The paralegal will state her side and then you will get a chance to speak. The judge will have your paperwork concerning validation/verification and chain of ownership. Obviously, of they haven't sent it to you, the paralegal will not have it at court. The judge at that point will either 1) Dismiss the case, or 2) order a continuance for 30 days to provide the chain of ownership validation/verification.

If it's dismissed on the spot? You win, your done. If it gets continued? 98.2% of the time within 3 weeks, they will dismiss it per rule 41(a) because it will take way to long to get the chain of ownership and it will cost way to much in legal fees.

Now that you have won, take all of your paperwork (and the court paperwork from the dismissal) and seek out a consumer rights lawyer/or one that specializes in credit and debt collector harassment. Meet with the lawyer and discuss suing Brock and Scott for FDCPA laws that they simply ignore.

All of the above is from MY personal experience, going Pro Se and winning. My case was drawn out for 2 years but FINALLY got that court date. Once I got the case dismissed I talked to a lawyer and now the law firm has all my paperwork and a FDCPA lawsuit will be submitted soon.

Just remember, every FDCPA law they break? is a $1000 fine paid. Things to consider.
B&S saying they have been retained by original creditor
B&S using the word  "our client" for the original creditor
Continuing collection procedures after verification/validation hasn't been made.
Saying they will send a sheriff to repossess property
Not identifying themselves as debt collectors on the phone/in a letter
Collecting interest that they are not authorized to collect
Over exagerating the original amount owed....etc etc etc.

Heck! being that they send a miranda letter stating much of the above, through the mail via USPS can actually be labeled as mail fraud in a federal court.

Best of luck in beating Brock and Scott (although it's not hard) Just follow through and stay focused. Don't let anything pass by and always answer everything to the court, and NEVER miss your court dates.

Darren Woods, Richard Jackson, Montana, Brock and Scott, Bullhead Investments, The Chanel Group and Comprehensive Legal Solutions Bottom Feeding at their best.

I don't know who this is, but I have never lived in NC, SC or TN.

Greentree Collections is an irritating collection agency in NC.  They buy debts off of creditors to try to harass people into paying up.

JUST GOT A CALL FROM THIS #  336-345-0110  SAID SHE WAS CALLING ON BEHALF OF GREEN TREE FIC            .DEBT COLLECTOR      (THINK IS IS CAPITAL ONE)
SAID SHE WAS A PARALEGAL

Brock & Scott PLLC its a bill collector for Capital One.

I had a credit card that i could not pay and brock and scott bought the debt. Well i made arrangements with them in wrighting and they gave me a date to give them a down payment and them monthy payments after that. Well they DIDNOT give me untill the date that they agreed on for the down payment. I still I had two weeks to get them the down payment and they took me to court. I went to court and they didnt show and my case got dismissed.

These folks have called my house several times looking ffor one of my daughters trying to collect her unpaid debt. They're not pleasant to deal with. I always tell them she hasn't lived with me for years. They'll ask for a number where she can be reached I say no; I ask what is the reason of the call to which I'm told is private, blah blah blah ... same routine over and over again. So with the last call I got we did the same song and dance,but I then ended my call with: ' sorry, but giving you any information regarding my daughter would be a violation of her privacy' and hung up as the the woman went off on me.

I'm not defending my daughter's wrongdoings. I've tried everything to get her to own up to her resposibilities, I just have no magic to make a 23 year-old adult to that. My beef with the collectors is that they harrass me because she listed me as a contact number years ago.

A few use a decent approach, Brock and Scott IS NOT ONE OF THEM!!!

I found someone at Chase that says they can give me a detailed accounting of B&S`s charges,

rumored to be $137.00 for a copied from letter...and WHY the loan went from $275  ...to $683 per

month ...( part of the reason the US is  in this finaincial mess to start with ) plus I  hired an attorney to

look into them & have had discussions w my Senate &  House people...

NC Sec of State today  launched an investigtion into BOA......

B&S & those like them doin biz w BOA will be included..

btw..the lady w th  house payment problems is BLIND since 2004 & has problems with getting

disability .....

B&S  gave us 6 different prices to catch up the arrears on a $275 a month house payment that went behind in March...it grew to , according to their figures, $6495.00 to over $8,000...one day alone they gave a figure of $7286.00 on the phone and $6895 when I got home in an email.

The phone call was the 10th I had made & finally got thorugh after being put on indefinite hold 9 times.

We drove 5 hrs there to Wimington NC to Oleander Blvd Office, observed what can be described as a telemarketing operation of over 50 cars in the parking lot at 8 pm and virtually a 2nd shift working there.

Went in te nex morning after cashing in an insurance policy & selling a car, & paid them $6505.00.

They then said they couldn`t give me any information as to WHO, WHERE & HOW Much the payment was & who to send it to . (it was a Washington Mutual Loan that had been absorbed by Chase after THEIR WM failure)

My neighbor works for a lawyer 5 hrs away & says SHE can`t get em on the phone

Brock and Scott along with all of the junk debt collectors should make sure the debt is valid and the statute of limitations has not expired before contacting debtors because they are violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act trying to collect on time-barred debt and can be fined up to $1,000.

We have no idea how this person got our name and number.  He would not give any information about himself, and I did not get a good feeling about him at all.  I guess he thought that I was stupid enough to just hand out our information.

Tired of being tracked by these people>parents are now dead but a family person listed my number and theirs on a application so they state they can't remove us.i aint hunting down anyone.

No sheriff will come to your home and take your property, over some pity collector who is collecting on some debt you have already paid.  Unless your home is in foreclosure, don't sweat it.

It is illegal for any collector to make threats, such as what they have done to you.

Save everything you receive from them.  Do not throw it away.  Take them to court and make them pay for the harassment

http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/rules/harrassment-abuse-tactics-6.html

Contact the Attorney General in the State which you reside.

It's tough times and many collectors are taking advantage of this and going after people.  Don't let them get to you, get back at them by making them pay.

First off, it is illegal for any collector to call and make threats.  The police will not come to your door and remove items from your home.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/credit/cre18.shtm

http://www.fair-debt-collection.com/rules/harrassment-abuse-tactics-6.html

Record all calls you receive from them, you can use an MP3 player that has a built in recorder.  If they leave threatening voice mail messages, save them.  You never speak with a bill collector over phone, always do everything in writing, via registered mail and never sign document.

I have a friend, who received a call a while back from another collector, stating that they had a warrant out for his arrest and that they have filed documents in a local County he never lived in.  He called the court clerk and there was nothing filed under his name.

All of this is to scare a person into paying, which is completely illegal.  You have every right to sue them and get them for harassment.

Most debt collectors who aren't following the law, have just as much debt, if not more, then the person they are contacting.

Check out http://budhibbs.com/
http://clarkhoward.com

I am not saying 'Don't pay your bills'.  However, listening to all the callers on Clark Howard and other shows, from people who are contacted by collectors, I always hear the reply about 'Statute of Limitations'.

A collector must provide documentation when requested by the person they are collecting on.  They are obligated to provide that to you, within 30 days, according to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Clark Howard has mentioned, let a collector take you to court.  Majority of the time that person fails to show up or the judge orders on the Statute of Limitations and they lose.

What about the many phone calls collection agencies make, calling for someone that clearly does not exist at the number you have contacted?

FYI, we have been receiving another parties collection calls for the past 5 years, from various collection agencies.  It is not our fault we got assigned a phone number, that once had been assigned to someone, such as the 'shady contractor', who doesn't pay his bills.

I don't know how many times one must keep repeating themselves, telling the caller that the person they are attempting to contact does not exist at the number they called.  Your agency and other's can keep calling, asking for someone we don't know, you are just wasting your time and our time.

Today, we received 2 missed calls from this number, both calls registered at 1:50pm, according to our missed call log.  No message was left.  Whenever there is a number in question, we don?t recognize, we always do a ?Google? search to find out who called.

Granted, many times when it is a number we do not recognize, it ends up being a wrong number, if the party does call back and we answer the call, usually asking for the person who previously had our current number.

When I had googled the number to find out who called, it is clear the person calling from the number, had dialed our number in error.  From reading the posts, it appears that the party calling from the number is attempting to collect on debt.  We have no reason why anyone would be contacting us to collect on any debt.

It would be professional for the party calling, to leave a message, stating who they are and who they are calling for.  I realize that many people today are having financial problems and many times you find that your number once was issued to a previous party, that a collection agency or other is attempting to contact.  In our case, our number used to belong to some shady contractor, and we have been receiving calls for him for the past 5 years, including collectors.

I think we all get the point.  There are four of these within this thread.  Not once has B&S been reprimanded, suspended, or made to stop in the practice of law.  Looks like they hide behind newly hired attorneys.


25895 - In the Matter of Frank Bryant Brown

IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Supreme Court

               In the Matter of Frank Bryant Brown, Respondent.

Opinion No. 25895
Submitted September 23, 2004 ? Filed November 8, 2004

DEFINITELY SUSPENDED
AND
DISBARRED

Henry B. Richardson, Jr., Disciplinary Counsel, and Barbara M. Seymour, Senior Assistant Disciplinary Counsel, both of Columbia, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Desa A. Ballard, of West Columbia, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:   In this attorney disciplinary matter, respondent and the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) have entered into two Agreements for Discipline by Consent pursuant to Rule 21, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.  In the first agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of any sanction up to and including a two year definite suspension from the practice of law.  See Rule 7, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.  We accept the first agreement and impose a definite suspension of two years from the practice of law.  In the second agreement, respondent admits misconduct and consents to the imposition of any sanction set forth in Rule 7(b), RLDE.  We accept the second agreement and disbar respondent.  The two sanctions shall run concurrently.

FIRST AGREEMENT

The facts, as set forth in the first agreement, are as follows.

FACTS

Matter I

Respondent graduated from law school in June 1999.  Before being admitted to practice law in any state, respondent obtained employment with Brock & Scott, a Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based real estate firm.  He was assigned to the firm?s law office in Rock Hill.  Respondent worked under the supervision of an attorney licensed to practice law in South Carolina.

While employed as a non-lawyer at Brock & Scott, respondent conducted real estate closings without an attorney being present.  Respondent signed his own name to the documents associated with the real estate closings.  After conducting the closings, it was respondent?s practice to have other employees of the firm sign as witness and/or notary on the documents even though they were not present at the closings.  Respondent conducted some closings when there was no licensed South Carolina attorney on the premises.  Respondent routinely signed as witness and notary to documents relating to closings at which he was not present.

In September 1999, Brock & Scott merged with the firm of Forquer & Green, a Charlotte, North Carolina-based real estate firm with an office in Columbia,  The two firms remained separate in North Carolina, but operated as Green, Brock, Forquer & Scott in South Carolina.  Respondent continued to conduct real estate closings without an attorney present (and sometimes without an attorney on the premises) while employed by the new firm.  In connection with those real estate closings, respondent signed the name of his supervising attorney without indicating he was signing on her behalf.  He continued his practice of soliciting signatures and notarizations from staff members not present at the closings and signing his own name as witness and notary to documents executed outside his presence.

In January 2000, the South Carolina attorney responsible for respondent?s supervision left Green, Brock, Forquer & Scott to work for a subsidiary company of Forquer & Green in Charlotte.  Respondent continued to conduct real estate loan closings without the presence or supervision of a South Carolina attorney.  Respondent continued to sign his former supervising attorney?s name to real estate documents.

In April 2000, Green, Brock, Forquer & Scott dissolved and respondent became employed with Forquer & Green.  He continued to conduct real estate closings in the manner described above until his admission to the South Carolina Bar in November 2000.

Respondent estimates he conducted two or three closings per day from June 1999 until November 2000.  During the time period in which respondent conducted closings for the three law firms, it was not his practice to inform parties he was not an attorney.  While he did not affirmatively hold himself out as an attorney, respondent only disclosed the fact that he was not an attorney when a party made a specific inquiry.  Respondent acknowledges that it was likely that the parties to the closings assumed he was an attorney.

During the time period in which respondent was conducting the closings for the three law firms, he made no meaningful inquiry about the propriety of a nonlawyer conducting real estate closings, although he represents he did have concerns in this regard.  Respondent did not question his employers, conduct research into the statutory or case law on the subject, consult with an attorney outside the firm, or seek guidance from the South Carolina Bar.

Matter II

On January 28, 2000, respondent traveled to the office of a mortgage company in Greenville to conduct a real estate closing for Mr. and Mrs. Doe.  Respondent was not licensed to practice law at the time.  There was no licensed attorney present at the closing or on the premises.  Many of the closing documents were signed by the Does in blank.  Respondent signed his supervising attorney?s name to the closing documents.  He returned the closing documents to the firm and solicited signatures of other staff members as witnesses and notary.  Respondent?s involvement in this matter was discovered during an investigation of a grievance filed after the Does attempted to refinance the property and discovered that that mortgage and deed had never been filed.

Matter III

On February 25, 2000, respondent?s former supervisor at Green, Brock, Forquer & Scott conducted a real estate closing for Mr. and Mrs. Smith as a favor to the firm because respondent was studying for the bar examination and unavailable.  Respondent was unaware of this arrangement.

Upon his return to the firm after taking the examination, respondent found a stack of approximately ten to twenty closing files, including the Smiths? file, waiting for him to complete.  Respondent proceeded to sign his former supervisor?s name to the closing documents in those files.  He was unaware that his former supervisor had actually conducted the Smiths? closing.  He assumed a paralegal had conducted the Smiths? closing.  Respondent signed his own name as witness and/or notary on the documents in the files, including the documents in the Smiths? file, although he was not present when the documents were executed.  Some of the documents in the Smiths? closing file were incomplete or contained blanks.  Respondent completed the documents or filled in the blanks.  Respondent?s involvement in the matter was discovered during an investigation of a grievance filed after the Smiths attempted to refinance the property and discovered that the mortgage and deed had never been filed.

Matter IV

On April 26, 2000, while working as a non-lawyer for Forquer & Green, respondent was sent to a mortgage company in Greenville to conduct a closing for Mrs. Jones.  At this time, respondent was being supervised by a different South Carolina attorney who was not available to conduct the closing himself.  Although he was unaware of the circumstances at the time, respondent now reports that, in accordance with pleadings filed in ensuing litigation, they are as follows.

Mrs. Jones contacted the mortgage company about refinancing her home because she faced foreclosure.  As a result of delays by the mortgage company, Mrs. Jones? home was sold at a foreclosure sale.  Mr. Pressley, an employee of the mortgage company, purchased the home at the foreclosure sale.  Mr. Pressley also persuaded Mrs. Jones to endorse the check for her portion of the sales proceeds to himself.  For some reason, no deed was recorded by the special referee.  At Mr. Pressley?s request, respondent?s firm prepared a deed from Mrs. Jones to Mr. Pressley.  

Upon his arrival at the mortgage company, respondent was handed the above-mentioned deed and was informed that Mrs. Jones had signed the deed, but had left before he arrived.  Respondent returned to the law office and signed his supervising attorney?s name as witness and his own name as notary.  Neither respondent nor his supervising attorney were present during the execution of the documents.  Respondent did not confirm with Mrs. Jones that she had in fact signed the deed.

Ultimately, Mr. Pressley defaulted on the property and the home was sold at a second foreclosure.  In settlement of the lawsuit filed against respondent, his supervising attorney, and Forquer & Green, the firm arranged for financing for Mrs. Jones, placed title to the property back in her name, and paid her a cash settlement.

Matter V

Respondent continued his employment with Forquer & Green following his admission to the South Carolina Bar in November 2000.  He became a partner in the firm in April 2001.

After becoming a licensed attorney, respondent allowed non-lawyers under his supervision to conduct real estate closings outside his presence.  During that time, respondent also continued the practices of witnessing and notarizing documents that were executed outside his presence and soliciting witness and notary signatures from individuals in the firm not present during execution.  These practices continued until early in January 2002, when respondent received notice of grievances filed against him.  Respondent has now discontinued these practices and has instructed the members and staff of his firm to discontinue these practices.

LAW

Respondent admits that his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 413, RLDE, specifically Rule 7(a) (1) (lawyer shall not violate Rules of Professional Conduct or any other rules of this jurisdiction regarding professional conduct of lawyers) and Rule 7(a) (5) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring the courts or the legal profession into disrepute or conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law).  In addition, respondent admits he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR:  Rule 5.3 (lawyer having direct supervisory authority over non-lawyer employee shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person?s conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; lawyer is responsible for conduct of non-lawyer employee if the conduct would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer and lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved); Rule 5.5 (lawyer shall not assist non-lawyer in performance of activity which constitutes unauthorized practice of law); Rule 8.4(a) (lawyer shall not violate Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 8.4(d) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation); and Rule 8.4(e) (lawyer shall not engage in conduct that is prejudicial to administration of justice).  

We note that a significant portion of respondent?s misconduct, including conducting real estate closings, signing documents on behalf of others without so indicating, and requesting others sign as witness or notary on documents not signed in their presence, occurred before respondent was licensed to practice law in this state.  We take this opportunity to address the Court?s authority to discipline an attorney for conduct which occurred prior to, but was not discovered until after, his or her admission to the practice of law. [1]      

The South Carolina Constitution specifies that this Court has jurisdiction ?over the admission to practice law and the discipline of persons admitted.?  S.C. Const. art. V, § 4.  The ?central purpose of the disciplinary process is to protect the public from unscrupulous and indifferent lawyers.?  Matter of Hall, 333 S.C. 247, 251, 509 S.E.2d 266, 268 (1998); Matter of Brooks, 324 S.C. 105, 477 S.E.2d 98 (1996) (primary purpose of lawyer discipline is to maintain integrity of courts and protect the public).  In order to maintain the public?s trust, the Court possesses the authority to discipline attorneys for misconduct related to the legal profession and for misconduct which occurs outside the legal profession.2  For the purpose of protecting the public?s trust in the legal system it is likewise the Court?s duty to discipline an attorney for misconduct which precedes his or her admission to the practice of law.  See Stratmore v. State Bar of California, 538 P.2d 229 (Cal. 1975); Kentucky Bar Assoc. v. Signer, 533 S.W.2d 534 (Ky. 1976); Matter of Wong, 710 N.YS.2d 57 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000); see also Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Zdrok, 645 A.2d 830 (Pa. 1994) (attorney disciplined for conduct which occurred before becoming member of bar did not violate constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws). 3

Practically speaking, had the Court known of respondent?s misconduct prior to his admission, the information could have affected his admission to the Bar.  Respondent?s ability to keep relevant information from the Court until after his admission should not leave the Court without any means to address the situation.    

By holding the Court has the authority to discipline an attorney for misconduct which occurred prior to admission, we do not  suggest attorneys will be or should be disciplined for any and all pre-admission misconduct.  Instead, the Court will consider the nature and severity of the misconduct along with its date in relation to the attorney?s admission.

Here, respondent?s misconduct occurred after his graduation from law school, while he was preparing to sit for and awaiting the results of the bar examination, and while he was working for a law firm.  Respondent candidly admits he allowed firm clients to assume he was a licensed attorney.  This Court cannot ignore the fact that, within months prior to his admission to the South Carolina Bar, respondent actively participated in the unauthorized practice of law.  The Court concludes respondent is subject to the disciplinary authority of this Court for this misconduct.      

We accept the first agreement and impose a definite suspension of two years from the practice of law.

SECOND AGREEMENT

The facts, as set forth in the second agreement, are as follows.

FACTS

Matter I

From June 2001 through May 2002 when he worked for the Rock Hill subsidiary of Forquer, Lattimore & Calloway (f/k/a Forquer & Green and f/k/a Green, Brock, Forquer & Scott), respondent conducted real estate closings on behalf of two real estate investment companies, Kenbill Properties (Kenbill) and Keystone Properties (Keystone).  Respondent became involved with these real estate investment companies less than a year after his admission to the Bar.  Although he was made a partner in the firm, he was provided no training or supervision by Mr. Green or Mr. Forquer, the senior partners in the firm, neither of whom was licensed in South Carolina.

Kenbill Properties (Kenbill) and Keystone Properties (Keystone) were in the business of locating properties and finding borrowers/investors to purchase the properties.  The borrowers/investors were told they needed no down payment and would actually be paid money to purchase homes.  The real estate investment companies promised to locate renters and manage the properties.  They agreed to collect rent, pay the mortgage and upkeep, retain a fee, and then pay the balance to the borrowers/investors.

The seller (usually the builder) established a sales price for the property.  The real estate investment companies, with the assistance of a mortgage broker or loan officer, then prepared a sales contract, loan application, and other documents containing an inflated sales price (approximately $15,000 to $100,00 above the actual sales price), down payment amount, and false information about the borrower/investor.  The documents were presented to and approved by a lender.

Thereafter, respondent would complete a title search, a title commitment, and a HUD-1 settlement statement.  The HUD-1 prepared by respondent would reflect the inflated sales price, a down payment from the borrower/investor, and a cash payment to seller.  At closing, the HUD-1 would be signed by the borrower/investor, the seller, and respondent.  The parties would also sign a certification that the information on the HUD-1 was a true and accurate representation of the receipts and disbursements in the transaction.  Instead of disbursing the cash to seller as stated in the HUD-1, respondent would pay a portion to the real estate investment company as an assignment or consulting  fee and pay the balance to the seller.  The borrower/investor would then be paid a fee outside the closing by the seller or the real estate investment company.

In some cases, the borrower/investor would not bring any cash to the closing, contrary to the representation made on the HUD-1.  The only funds received by respondent were the loan proceeds which would be disbursed according to the assignment agreement between the real estate investment company and the seller, rather than in accordance with the HUD-1.

In cases where the lender required proof of certified funds from the borrower, the real estate investment company would purchase a cashier?s check to bring to the closing (implying the check was provided by the borrower).  In those cases, respondent would deposit the cashier?s check and would add that amount back to the assignment fee check paid to the real estate investment company.

While respondent did not participate in the preparation of the fraudulent contracts or loan applications, he was responsible for preparing the fraudulent HUD-1 forms.  He did so with knowledge that no cash would be received from the borrower/investor and that loan proceeds would not be disbursed as stated.  With each loan package, respondent received a set of closing instructions.  Those instructions specifically required respondent to verify that the HUD-1 settlement statement was a true and accurate accounting of the transaction.  In many cases, respondent was instructed not to proceed with the transaction if he became aware of any payments to or contributions from any third parties not identified on the HUD-1.

Many of the borrowers/investors received lower interest rates because it was represented to the lenders that they intended to occupy the properties as primary residences.  This representation was made on the loan applications and on affidavits and certifications contained in the loan packages required by the lender.  These representations were false.  Additionally, the mortgage securing the lender?s interest in the property contained an occupancy clause, violation of which would render the borrower in default.  While respondent did not prepare the loan applications, owner occupancy affidavits, or mortgages, he did present them to the borrowers for signature at the closings.  While respondent did not have specific knowledge that the borrowers did not intend to occupy the properties, he was aware of the nature of Kenbill?s and Keystone?s businesses and he had sufficient facts that should have caused him to question the legitimacy of the transactions.

Matter II

On at least eight occasions, respondent conducted concurrent real estate transactions on the same property for Kenbill and others.  These transactions are sometimes referred to as either a property ?flip? or loan ?flip.?

In an illegal property flip, the seller enters into a sales contract with Buyer A.  Prior to the commencement of that sale, Buyer A enters into a contract to sell the same property at a higher price to Buyer B.  Buyer B uses this contract to obtain financing.  Buyer A obtains no financing.  The conveyances are then made concurrently, with Buyer A using the loan proceeds obtained by Buyer B to purchase the property from Seller.  The flip transaction is illegal when the information to the lender, including the information stated on the HUD-1 settlement statement, fails to disclose that the property is being conveyed in two transactions.  Often documents have to be pre-dated or post-dated to mislead the lender.  Title commitments, seller?s affidavits or confirmations, and closing attorney certifications must contain false information.  Often, neither Seller nor Buyer B is aware of the other?s involvement.  In those cases, Buyer A retains the excess loan proceeds.  Buyer B then has a loan on the property that far exceeds the property value.  In other cases, Buyer B is in collusion with Buyer A and they share the excess loan proceeds and leave the lender with property insufficient to cover its loan.

The cooperation of the closing agent is necessary for an illegal property flip to succeed.  First, the title search required by the lender will reveal that the Seller owns the property rather than Buyer A (the party the lender believes is the seller).  Second, the closing agent must actually close the Buyer A to Buyer B transaction first in order to fund the Seller to Buyer A transaction.  However, the deed from Seller to Buyer A must be recorded prior to the deed from Buyer A to Buyer B.  Finally, the lender?s closing instructions often require that the closing agent verify that the property has not been conveyed within a certain time period prior to the closing and/or that there is no simultaneous conveyance of the property.

In the eight flip sales closed by respondent, the HUD-1 settlement statements and other closing documents did not disclose to the lenders that the properties were being transferred in two conveyances rather than one.  Further, the HUD-1 settlement statements did not reveal that the loan proceeds were being used to fund the first conveyance.  Respondent admits he failed to comply with the lenders? closing instructions in these transactions, but certified that he had complied with the instructions.  Respondent represents he lacked the experience or training sufficient to recognize the transactions as fraudulent.  He relied on the experience and expertise of his partners, the brokers, agents, and investment companies.

Matter III

Mr. Heckle was the proprietor of Keystone.  He was also affiliated with Kenbill.  Mr. Heckle broke his ties with that company when its principals came under federal investigation for mortgage fraud.  Respondent had ceased closing loans for Kenbill prior to that time.

Respondent subsequently entered into a joint venture with Mr. Heckle.  Respondent intended to engage in real estate investment without defrauding lenders.

Respondent?s agreement with Mr. Heckle provided that respondent would solicit investors to purchase homes built by Mr. Smith.  The borrower/investor would advance money that would be listed on the HUD-1 as cash from buyer (i.e., down payment).  Respondent would rebate or kick back a portion of the sales proceeds to Mr. Heckle.  Mr. Heckle was to retain one-third of the rebate as his fee, pay one-third of the rebate to respondent as his non-legal fee, and place the remaining one-third into a Keystone account.  The Keystone account was to be used to manage the properties and pay the mortgage payments until rent was received.  Once rent was received, the balance from the transaction in the Keystone account would be paid to borrowers/investors.  The rent payments would be applied to the loan payment and management expenses and any profit would go to the borrowers/investors.  Respondent believed this arrangement would be legal because the trust account disbursements would correspond with the HUD-1.

Respondent recruited members of his family and friends to make these real estate investments.  In these transactions, Mr. Smith determined the minimum sales price he would accept for each property.  Based on an inflated sales price and representation to the lender that the borrower would make a down payment, loans were obtained for more than Mr. Smith?s sales price.  Mr. Heckle and the borrower/investors would provide the down payment.  Respondent or someone from his firm conducted the closings.

At the closings, the firm received the loan proceeds plus the ?down payments.?  Trust account checks were then issued according to the HUD-1.  Mr. Smith received a check in the amount listed on the HUD-1 as payable to the seller.  Mr. Smith would then pay rebates (or kickbacks) to Keystone, to Mr. Heckle, and to the borrowers/investors.

At the time, respondent believed that, because the amount shown on the HUD-1 was the amount actually paid to the seller from the trust account, that the transactions were legal.  Respondent now admits that, because he was aware that the seller made subsequent distributions to Keystone, Mr. Heckle, and the borrowers/investors, that those distributions should have been revealed to the lender.  He further admits that he was aware that the sales prices listed on the HUD-1 statements were not the actual prices paid to the seller.

At the closing of several of these transactions, respondent began to have some concerns about Mr. Heckle when a $15,000 check to a borrower/investor from the Keystone account was returned for insufficient funds and when one of respondent?s investors reported that a mortgage payment had not been made.  Mr. Heckle explained the lack of funds by stating his wife, who had access to the Keystone account, had taken the funds.

After the check was returned for insufficient funds, respondent assumed control over the management of the funds using his own account.  He required Mr. Heckle to make up the shortfalls in cash derived from subsequent transactions.

In connection with these transactions, owner occupancy affidavits that stated the borrowers/investors intended to occupy the properties as primary residences were signed, notarized, and submitted to the lenders.  Respondent was aware that most of the borrowers/investors did not intend to live in the homes.  Respondent incorrectly advised the borrowers/investors that they were only required to spend one night in their properties to render the owner occupancy affidavits truthful.  Respondent based this advice on incorrect information he received from a lender not associated with any of the transactions.

Respondent ultimately discovered that Mr. Heckle was not managing or maintaining the properties or securing renters.  Respondent then dissolved the joint venture with Mr. Heckle and took over management of the properties.  He used his own funds to cover investors? losses.  When he discovered that his understanding of the requirements for owner occupancy was incorrect, he assisted the borrowers/investors in notifying the lenders and submitting corrected affidavits.

Respondent?s interest in these investments created a conflict of interest for respondent and his firm.  Respondent failed to advise the lenders or the borrowers/investors of that conflict of interest, although the investors he recruited were made aware of his personal involvement with Keystone.  Respondent failed to obtained informed consent to waivers of this conflict of interest in accordance with the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Respondent never received any funds from the proceeds of the loans as had been promised by Mr. Heckle.  He did not personally profit from any of the transactions other than the legal fees generated which were paid to the firm.  Respondent has paid significant sums to correct his errors.

Respondent made a self-report to the ODC.  ODC agrees respondent has fully cooperated in this investigation.

LAW

Respondent admits his misconduct constitutes grounds for discipline under Rule 7, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR, particularly Rule 7(a)(1) (it is ground for discipline for lawyer to violate Rules of Professional Conduct), Rule 7(a)(5) (it is ground for discipline for lawyer to engage in conduct tending to pollute the administration of justice or to bring legal profession into disrepute or to engage in conduct demonstrating an unfitness to practice law), and Rule 7(a)(6) (it is ground for discipline for lawyer to violate the oath of office taken upon admission to practice law in this state).  In addition, respondent admits that, by his misconduct, he has violated the following provisions of the Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR:  Rule 1.1 (lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client); Rule 1.8 (lawyer shall not enter into a business transaction with a client or knowingly acquire a pecuniary interest adverse to a client unless transactions and terms are reasonable to the client and fully disclosed and submitted to client in writing and client consents in writing); Rule 4.1 (in the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law to a third person); Rule 8.4(a) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct); Rule 8.4(d) (it is professional misconduct for lawyer to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 8.4(e) (it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).

We accept the second agreement and disbar respondent from the practice of law.

CONCLUSION

We accept the two Agreements for Discipline by Consent.  We impose a definite suspension of two years and disbar respondent from the practice of law.  The sanctions shall run concurrently.  Within fifteen days of the date of this opinion, respondent shall file an affidavit with the Clerk of Court showing that he has complied with Rule 30, RLDE, Rule 413, SCACR.

DEFINITELY SUSPENDED AND DISBARRED.

TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.

[1] It is a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct for an applicant for admission to the bar to knowingly make a false statement of material fact in connection with the application process.  Rule 8.1 of Rule 407, SCACR.  In addition, the Rules Pertaining to the Admission to Practice Law advise the Court may vacate the admission or otherwise discipline an attorney if it is determined he provided false or misleading information in his application.  Rule 402(h), SCACR.  These rules are not directly applicable to the circumstances presented here as respondent?s misconduct was not specifically addressed in the admissions process.  However, they suggest the Court can sanction an attorney for misconduct which occurs prior to admission.    

[2] See Preamble to Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 407, SCACR (lawyer?s conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer?s business and personal affairs).

[3] In Matter of Edwards , 327 S.C. 148, 488 S.E.2d 864 (1997), the Court stated conduct occurring prior to an attorney?s admission to the Bar is not sanctionable.  To the extent Edwards is inconsistent with this opinion, it is overruled.  


© 2000-2010 South Carolina Judicial Department