Supreme
Court rejects foreclosure lawyer’s pleas
The
California Supreme Court refused last month to consider a petition from
Calabasas attorney Philip Kramer to stop the State Bar from taking over his law
practice. Kramer is one of four lawyers shut down last summer by the bar and
Attorney General Kamala Harris for their allegedly illegal loan modification
activities.
Kramer
had argued before the Court of Appeal that the bar had no authority to take
over his practice because the Business & Professions Code section it used is
directed at attorneys with mental or physical disabilities. The bar acted under
B&P § 6190, which permits the court to assume jurisdiction over the
practice of any attorney incapable of devoting time and attention to his law
practice necessary to protect clients.
“Kramer’s
inability to provide quality service to clients and to devote sufficient
attention to his law practice warranted State Bar action,” said Acting
Chief Trial Counsel Jayne Kim. “We believed that the Superior Court properly
assumed jurisdiction of Kramer’s practice given the evidence
presented.”
The
bar took over Kramer’s law practice in August, accusing him of abdicating
his professional responsibilities with false advertising and by using
non-lawyers to bring in clients, set fees, provide legal advice and evaluate
cases. Kramer, along with three other attorneys and marketing firms,
represented hundreds of clients and collected millions of dollars in fees,
according to the bar. Clients paid between $3,500 and $10,000 to join the suit
but they rarely, if ever, met with an attorney and the legal advice they were
given by non-lawyers was often inaccurate.
Kramer
said in a petition to the Court of Appeal that the bar had no authority to take
over the practice. The court denied his writ, and the Supreme Court refused to
hear his petition.
Harris sued
Kramer, three other lawyers,
three law firms and 14 other defendants, accusing them of working together to
defraud distressed homeowners through a “mass joinder” scam in
which individual plaintiffs with separate but somewhat similar causes of action
join in a single suit. Mass joinder differs from class action suits in that
plaintiffs in a class action share a single judgment, and mass joinder
plaintiffs can receive individual judgments or settlements. Harris called
Kramer the “ringleader” of the scam.
Kramer’s
firm and the other defendants were placed into receivership on Aug. 15 and were
enjoined from continuing their operations.