documents papers files foldersSome people are dismissing troubled homeowners' complaints that they were lied to about the terms of their mortgages. After all, the borrowers should have read what they were signing. But when it comes to the so-called robo-signers at the banks or Lender Processing Services (LPS), the same critique should be equally valid: By signing documents without reading them, the mortgage processors were lying under oath.

But the people who deserve the greatest scorn for their behavior in the foreclosure document scandal are the robo-signing lawyers and their colleagues who submitted robo-signed documents to the courts. These attorneys should be facing discipline and perhaps disbarment for their actions. After all, when we talk of homeowners and robo-signers at banks, we speak of people who should have known better -- and that's the lawyers' job.

Just how aware some lawyers are of how far wrong the foreclosure business has gone -- and the professional risks they run by participating in it -- is revealed by the deposition of Tammie Lou Kapusta, a former paralegal at the Law Offices of David J. Stern. Amid all the depressing details of precisely how that foreclosure mill abused the rule of law are lots of comments about how the attorneys, generally inexperienced, were terrified of being disbarred or disciplined for what they were doing, but were also terrified of losing their jobs, given the terrible legal job market.

Attorneys Knew Their Licenses Were On the Line

What made the attorneys so nervous? Well, Kapusta testified that the law firm manufactured documents as needed, backdated documents, signed more than 2,000 documents daily without reading them, switched signature pages among documents, and had three people sign the same name. She swore the firm knowingly created and gave courts documents with key information listed incorrectly, such as how much the debtor owed or which bank was foreclosing. (In these cases, the COO used her judgment to make "business decision[s]" about what to do.)

Kapusta testified that probably 50% of the time the firm failed to give homeowners notice that a bank was foreclosing on them, while simultaneously and grotesquely padding bills for the "service" by naming John and Jane Does to be served, even if they didn't exist. To keep everything going, the firm maintained a "bible" that explained how each judge scrutinized the submitted documents, so that the firm could make the documents pass muster in each court. No wonder the attorneys at David J. Stern worried about their licenses.

It's crucial to realize that Stern isn't the only firm knowingly engaging in behavior that could -- and at least for the supervising attorneys at Stern, should -- get their attorneys disbarred. The Kapusta deposition came to light as part of the Florida attorney general's ongoing investigation of that firm, but Bill McCollum's office is also investigating three other firms: the Florida Default Law Group, The Law Offices of Marshall C. Watson, P.A. and Shapiro & Fishman, LLP. But even if those were the only problematic firms in Florida, the problem is not limited to that state.

I've reviewed a couple documents from New York involving a lawyer/robo-signer named Elpinicki Bechakas of the firm Steven J. Baum, where she signs on behalf of mortgage loan registry MERS, assigning mortgages to the firm's clients to enable them to foreclose. At least one judge in a case involving her documents has recognized the conflict of interest inherent in a law firm assigning the property of one entity, presumably its client, to another entity, also its client, at least without written permission from both entities.

Now, the United States Trustees, who monitor the bankruptcy courts, are getting involved. One filed a motion in a case involving a Bechakas assignment to ask the court to find it invalid. Now that some 40 state attorneys general are on the case, I expect to hear many similar stories.

I contacted both the Law Offices of David J. Stern and the firm Steven J. Baum for comment on this article. At publication time, Stern hadn't responded. In a statement, Baum said: "While we cannot comment on individual cases, execution of assignments of mortgages by Ms Bechakas were performed in accordance with a valid MERS corporate resolution and does not constitute a conflict of interest."

Destruction of the Real Property System

Why are attorneys, who do know better, taking such career-endangering actions? Interestingly, Housing Wire, a trade magazine, has just published a revealing view from the inside titled Foreclosure Mess Exposes the Rot from Within, in which the author -- the publisher of the magazine -- discusses the industry's subjugation of its lawyers to its detriment.
... I've seen line staff at banks threaten attorneys with removing cases should the law firm fail to do their bidding, even if that bidding directly contravened existing laws. (And this was in 2004; I can't imagine what it's like now.) ...

Attorneys that manage foreclosures often aren't usually even referred to as legal counsel anymore, insofar as many banking personnel are concerned. The law firms have been flat-fee'd into "vendor" status, instead, no different than whatever vendor is delivering office supplies ....

Show me one other industry where this is how legal work gets done.

...The result is that the concept of risk -- the core of any truly good lawyering, in any field of law -- has largely become a lost art in an industry that should have been concerned most of all with managing it. The industry charged with protecting the sanctity of our nation's property rights has instead allowed them to rot in the name of 'process efficiency.'
Indeed, even though much of the coverage of the foreclosure mess, including my own, has focused on the robo-signing and the related frauds on the court, it's important to realize these are just symptoms of the massive destruction of the real property system caused by the mega-securitization of mortgages. A useful overview of the foreclosure crisis has been published by Mike Konczal, and a much shorter but perhaps more sobering look at the overall problem and consequences was just published by Citigroup. That paper, titled Foreclosures Gone Wild, correctly points out the crux of the problem driving banks, vendors like Lender Processing Services, and law firms like David J. Stern to manufacture documents:
When a mortgage is securitized and placed in a mortgage pool, there are typically four parties involved. The mortgage bank or lender originates a mortgage and then sells it to a "sponsor" who in turn sells it to a "depositor" who then sells it to the "trust" which governs the pool. Importantly, as noted above, the original paperwork must be transferred at each step of the process.
It now appears that in many cases (1) the paperwork was not properly transferred and (2) it is unclear in many cases where the actual paperwork actually rests today.
The key consequence of not transferring the mortgages properly in the securitization process is a broken chain of title, which in turn makes foreclosure -- or indeed any other transfer of ownership of the property -- deeply problematic. That's doubly true now that many of the mortgage originators are out of business. That broken chain of title has led to the manufacture of documents. Incidentally, Bloomberg reported that Citigroup is no longer using David J. Stern.

What Is to Be Done?

As many have pointed out, the crisis and the exposure of the "rot within" hurts our nation's nascent economic recovery. However a false dichotomy is being set up between restoring the rule of law and straightening out all the titles and fixing the economy. We don't have to choose. If foreclosures are replaced with meaningful modifications, for example negotiated in the shadow of reinstated cram downs, a by-product will be to give the banks and other firms involved enough time to carefully and unhurriedly straighten out the mess. It is only the need to foreclose and transfer title in a hurry that creates the tension between doing the right thing and the economically helpful thing.

Moreover, wiping out massive amounts of principal and reducing interest on a broad scale would function as a major economic stimulus, which we need right now. The fact that the stimulus would come out of the banks' pockets is simply rough justice.

As for disciplining the attorneys involved in the foreclosure mess, California has been leading the way. Where are the other state bar associations? Why isn't the profession out in front, defending the rule of law?

Increase your money and finance knowledge from home

How much house can I afford

Home buying 101, evaluating one of your most important financial decisions.

View Course »

Getting out of debt

Everyone hates debt. Get out of it.

View Course »

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

173 Comments

Filter by:
Me

Yes the lawyers should have to pay just like a criminals ! They would convict any one who stole from them
They committed crimes like bank robber or thievies and made money while doing so in alot of cases . The banks that Hired the attorney should lose thier cases automatically and then the Goverment should sue each and every one of the Banks and the lawyers . Maybe , Any ROBO should have some kind of consequences . Modifications hmm they got credits while taking deductions they made out pretty darn good and then to get bail outs too ! No sympathy should be given too any bank that was involved in the criminal acts. Bank robbers do not get any sympathy now do they ?????

April 19 2012 at 10:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
enen265

You know … in all of this I haven’t noticed anyone ask the question that should have been asked early and often. Everyone should consider all the Loan Modifications that were turned down by the Servicers because they “didn’t meet the Investor Guidelines”. If they don’t even know who the investors are …. how with a perfectly straight face, can they claim the modifications didn’t meet the “Investor Guidelines”. Well… I guess it helps to have two faces. Where are these “Guidelines”?? The Servicers wouldn’t be lying again would they? Nahhh …

October 17 2010 at 5:18 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
madaline

Listen, why not give the good people a chance and let them have their modifications granted. Yes, some will still default but the majority will pay to stay in their homes, its quite elementary Dr. Watson . Why do they need to go thru the torture of completing paper work and proving there incomes. Its silly we all know our jobs are being outsourced! Give the good people a chance after all they are trying their best to stay in their homes, they have children and parents and others that need shelter. Remember the human aspect of this thing.

October 15 2010 at 7:58 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
mallycj

Two things need to happen. The defaulting homeowners should be foreclosed and evicted. Two wrongs do not make a right. Second, the lawyers who facilitated lying under oath, the robo signers who lied under oath and the banksters who suborned this perjury should all be headed for prison. This whole bailout and mortgage fiasco has been a massive failure of accountability. Especially as it applies to many in responsible positions who were extremely well compensated for taking responsibility. Then when things fell apatr they walked away from any accountability. In a reasonable world we would not even need the government to impel the banksters to do the right thing by apologizing, resigning and paying for the damage they have done. In our imperfect world the government should be prosecuting all of the new york bankster presidents, ceo's boards and board chairmen along with individual traders, brokers, market makers and other shills. bernanke, paulson ,geithner, bushjunior and a gang of others should have resigned in disgrace.

October 14 2010 at 2:08 AM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to mallycj's comment
lgarillescas

While I agree with you on the latter, Mally, I disagree with you on the former. Why should we consider foreclosing and evicting homeowners when fraudulent documents are used to create standing in our courtrooms? Aren't you absolutely appalled by this abuse of our judicial system? Why not strike out at those who are abusing our basic rights of fairness in the courts with legal (NOT FRAUDULENT)evidence by prosecuting the criminals (lending institutions) that have adopted these fraudulent methods? What good does it do our communities when homes are left abandoned and unattended (while those counties that still have money in their coffers tend to the vacant houses) when families are living in the streets? I've heard a lot of references in this thread that refer to ignorance and stupidity on the part of homeowners but regardless of whether they are correct or not, last time I checked neither was considered a criminal act. I'd prefer to leave folks in their homes to prevent deterioration and blighted neighborhoods that occur when homes that are vacant for even short periods of time.

January 23 2011 at 11:50 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
frankgut

Are the defendants in default on there mortgage payments. Are you stating that even if the merits of these cases would result in judgemnts against the defaulting owners that there is merit to a defense that the papers while correct on substance involve signature irregularities.As a result these defaulting defenddants should continue to reside in these haomes without making any payments to their creditors?

October 13 2010 at 9:01 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to frankgut's comment
asilc001

Fraudulently signed documents cannot be used to foreclose on a homeowner. What is so unclear about that? How can you say on one hand that the homeowners (in general) deserve it if they didn't read the 300 page document and understand it before they legally signed it (and therefore, they're screwed); but on the other hand, legally trained professionals are exempt from knowingly illegal actions, and their owners (the creditors) who knowingly hired them, should be given a pass- and allowed rights to stupidity that homeowners are not?

October 13 2010 at 11:56 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
tinroof9041

This is the bottom line, if you are illegal what do you not understand YOU ARE ILLEGAL, and if you are an attorney and you broke the law then you GO TO JAIL, if you broke the law because of pressure from the banks, you still broke the law, GO TO JAIL.

October 13 2010 at 8:22 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
mikersales

As I read this and its implications: BE REAL CAREFUL BUYING ANY PROPERTY WITHOUT A CLEAR TITLE AND TITLE INSURANCE, FORCLOSURE OR NOT. The people you think own it may not, and you're screwed if things turn out to be not to be what you thought them to be after the fact.

October 13 2010 at 6:03 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
James Harvey

A crime is a crime any way you slice it and resell it! Yes, something has to be done to solve this problem. I'm a RE broker in CA and I can tell you from the front lines the mods that have been given out are doomed to fail down the road. A good ideal is to offer the banks / lenders a choice. 1. Their CEO and every person involved goes to jail for fraud. 2. They will do loan mods that the home owner can pay or workout something that makes since. I have personally seen the lawyers in court fight the court over giving a homeowner a loan mods. My guess is they will do as they always have done. Payoff the government and back to business they go.

October 13 2010 at 5:12 PM Report abuse +2 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to James Harvey's comment
rricha5485

Now the sharks will be suing the sharks. What a feeding frenzy..

October 13 2010 at 4:35 PM Report abuse +1 rate up rate down Reply
1 reply to rricha5485's comment
garstang01

What do you call 1,000,000 lawers at the bottom of the ocean? A GOOD START

October 13 2010 at 4:51 PM Report abuse +3 rate up rate down Reply
propackage

"The first thing we do," said the character in Shakespeare's Henry VI, is "kill all the lawyers."

October 13 2010 at 2:45 PM Report abuse +5 rate up rate down Reply