King, Nieves & Zacks PLLC
Cleveland State Law Review, Vol. 60, No. 4, p. 867, 2013
Abstract:
The recent housing crisis increased demand for attorneys to process foreclosures through state courts. This increase in demand was coupled with a desire for the fastest and cheapest legal services available. As a result, large foreclosure firms designed to handle an enormous number of foreclosure cases quickly and inexpensively evolved and flourished. During their ascendancy, these firms consistently generated complaints about their conduct, including questions about their ethical decision-making and about the veracity of the pleadings and documents they filed. Scholarly literature on the housing crisis, however, is largely devoid of commentary on ethical issues related to increased foreclosures.
This Article tracks the rise and fall of several notorious high volume foreclosure firms and examines the numerous instances of serious misconduct their attorneys and paralegals perpetrated. The Article accordingly examines the curiously muted reaction from state bar associations, judges, and state legislators.
“The responsibility that they expected people to have was above and beyond what a human being could actually do as far as case loads.”
—Tammie Mae Kapusta, former paralegal for foreclosure law firm1
~
“You are acting as a robot for a plaintiff who is not even giving you the information you need to file a proper foreclosure. Now, if you choose to do that, you do that at your peril before this Court.”
—Judge Maxine Cohen Lando2
[ipaper docId=133742435 access_key=key-me7arpga6parydq2qbq height=600 width=600 /]