The Cal Bar put out the below press release a couple of days ago and I believe there is more to this story than what the Cal Bar is saying.  Just like their cases against Green Credit Solutions and Paul Lucas, what the Cal Bar is not saying is how many total clients did these attorneys have and how many people were actually helped.

The Cal Bar is about to lose their case against Green Credit Solutions because when they confiscated all the files out of their office, they  neglected to refer these homeowners to other attorneys or giving give them legal assistance to them. Thus, leaving hundreds of homeowners without legal representation and putting them at greater risk of losing their homes.  Matter of fact, because of the Cal Bar’’s actions, some actually did.  At the hearing this week, it was revealed that the Cal Bar only had 19 legitimate complaints against Green Credit Solutions.  They claimed last year they had 900.  This out of 3500 clients GCS had signed up.

The Cal Bar, the California AG’s office and the FTC publicly tarred and feathered Paul Lucas for scamming people by raiding and ransacking his offices, confiscating files and blocking his access to his firm’s bank accounts like something out of a 1930’s gangster movie.  They even attempted to have his law license revoked.  Only problem was, he wasn’t scamming people.  The FTC and the Cal Bar lost their case because Paul Lucas could prove he successfully modified 90% of the loans he handled and he was later re-instated as a member of the California Bar.  According to Cal Bar everything is now right in the universe.  Wrong!  Thanks to the internet, Paul Lucas will be permanently labeled, “Scam Artist”

So think about all that while reading this or any press releases put out by them or Jerry Brown’s office.

San Francisco, June 02, 2010 — Continuing its effort to protect the public from lawyers who take advantage of distressed homeowners, the State Bar prosecutor’s office has secured orders of involuntary inactive enrollment for Southern California attorneys Eric Douglas Johnsonand Mark Alan Shoemaker.

Besides the two involuntary inactive enrollments, the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel has obtained the resignations of 13 attorneys involved in loan modification misconduct since creation of the Loan Modification Task Force in April 2009.  Five loan modification trials are pending. Another 2,000 active investigations related to loan modification are being conducted.

In separate May actions, State Bar Court Judge Richard Honn ruled that the conduct of  Johnson (State Bar #224065), 55, of Los Angeles, and Shoemaker (State Bar #134828), 49, of Long Beach, pose a “substantial threat of harm” to their clients or the public, and both were ordered involuntarily enrolled as inactive members of the State Bar under Business and Professions Code 6007.

Johnson associated with several non-attorney legal organizations, lending his name and status as an attorney to a firm offering bankruptcy filing and assistance, a business handling forensic audits and loan modifications and two other loan modification companies. Honn cited cases in which homeowners were promised that their homes would not be foreclosed but the homeowners lost them anyway after having made significant payments to the non-attorney companies.

Johnson “lacked control and failed to supervise” any of the organizations with which he was associated, Honn wrote in his May 18 order. “This lack of control and failure to supervise consequently led to, among other things, the unauthorized practice of law, misrepresentations and client harm.”

Shoemaker, whose case was investigated and prosecuted with the invaluable help of the California Department of Real Estate, has owned and operated a loan modification business called Advocate for Fair Lending since 2008. Shoemaker “used Advocate and his status as an attorney to convince cash-strapped homeowners to pay him thousands of dollars in hopes of saving their homes from foreclosure,” Honn wrote in his May 28 order. Shoemaker, however, “often did little to nothing to help these clients. In fact, many of these homeowners were worse off after retaining [Shoemaker’s] services.”

The order referred to 18 examples in which Advocate clients, who signed power of attorney when they contracted with Advocate, were not helped and asked for refunds. A few did get refunds; many others did not. Some clients reported that their lenders said they had never been contacted by Advocate on their behalf. Shoemaker argued that he was merely the president of Advocate and did not represent any Advocate clients in a legal capacity.

“Advocate’s clients were also [Shoemaker’s] clients,” Honn wrote. “An attorney cannot use a power of attorney form to absolve themselves of the ethical mandates they have sworn to uphold.”