In The Matter Of Naderi

426 S.C. 476, 827 S.E.2d 582 (2019)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D had never been admitted to practice law in South Carolina or applied for pro hac vice admission. D owned Pacific National Law Center (PNLC). PNLC assured J.H. that the firm could get his loan modified and decrease his mortgage payments by securing both a balance reduction and a lower, fixed interest rate. PNLC employees also promised J.H. the firm would work diligently and return his calls within 48 hours. J.H. signed several forms including an 'Attorney Client Retainer Agreement' and a 'Third Party Authorization and Release Form.' The release form permitted J.H.'s lender to discuss his home loan with PNLC. D was specifically named as the individual permitted to discuss the loan on behalf of J.H. The form listed D's title as 'Paralegal.' For a fee of $2995, the retainer agreement would provide 'legal services,' including 'representation . . . for negotiation and resolution of disputes with current lender(s) regarding the subject real property and mortgage loan(s).' Litigation and litigation services were excluded from the scope of the representation. The agreement also stated that the fees paid were not conditioned on the outcome of the case, and restricted J.H.'s ability to cancel the agreement and seek a refund outside of the first five days after he signed the agreement. After five days, the agreement required disputes over fees to be arbitrated pursuant to the guidelines and standards adopted by the State Bar of California. The agreement also indicated that PNLC had no obligation to retain J.H.'s file for any period of time following the end of representation. J.H. made the fee agreement payments. Shortly after making his last payment, J.H. began experiencing difficulties reaching anyone at PNLC. PNLC never obtained a loan modification or offered J.H. any other solutions. J.H. received notice of the foreclosure hearing, and he was unable to reach anyone at PNLC. J.H. had to hire another attorney and file for bankruptcy in order to save his home. J.H. was unaware of any contact PNLC made with his lender, and he believed he had been scammed and the wrongdoer should be in jail or disbarred. In prior cases, D had accepted a ninety-day suspension and two years' probation for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law in Florida and Washington. In this action, D failed to cooperate with P, did not answer the formal charges, and was found to be in default. D was deemed to have admitted the factual allegations made against him in the charges.