Foreclosure Negotiation Firm, Employees Cited for Unauthorized Practice of Law, Fined $20,000
Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions. In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."
2010-1495. Disciplinary Counsel v. Foreclosure Alternatives, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2010-Ohio-6257.
On Final Report by the Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law, No. UPL 09-05. Foreclosure Alternatives, Inc., Kert Alexakis, and Lance Baker a.k.a. Lance Trester are permanently enjoined from acts constituting the practice of law in Ohio, and civil penalties are imposed.
Brown, C.J., and Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., concur.
Opinion: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2010/2010-Ohio-6257.pdf
(Dec. 23, 2010) The Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today that Cincinnati-based Foreclosure Alternatives Inc. (FAI) and employees Kert Alexakis and Lance Trester engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by managing the defense of foreclosure actions while negotiating with lenders for two homeowners.
In a 7-0 per curiam decision, the Court accepted the recommendation of its Board on the Unauthorized Practice of Law that it issue an order enjoining Foreclosure Alternatives, Alexakis and Trester, who have never been licensed as attorneys, from engaging in any future acts that constitute the practice of law and impose a total of $20,000 in civil penalties against the parties.
In today’s decision, the Court observed that: “FAI entered into contracts with foreclosure defendants, engaged attorneys for the limited purpose of filing pleadings, and ostensibly acted to resolve the mortgage disputes. In both instances, the homeowners lost their homes, which were sold in foreclosure (sheriff) sales.”
“The complaint charged, and the board concluded, that the respondents had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by counseling clients on the course of legal action in connection with foreclosure and by undertaking to negotiate on their behalf in the context of foreclosure actions.”
In summarizing the harmful effects of unauthorized law practice , the Court noted that “(t)he record in this case indicates the possibility of far better outcomes for the former homeowners had they received the full attention of qualified, competent attorneys who abided by their ethical obligations. Instead, the former homeowners paid hundreds of dollars for which they received little return.”
Contacts
Jonathan Coughlan, 614.461.0256, for the Office of Disciplinary Counsel.
James Frooman, 513.651.6707, for Lance Trester.
Requires the free Adobe Flash Player.View system requirements, download instructions, and download the free Adobe Flash Player.