The Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project - The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law - News Feed

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT

Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Antonio Ocegueda, et al. v. Ken Nathanson et al.

Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara

Case No. 1-11- CV-202525

The Court in Antonio Ocegueda, et al. v. Ken Nathanson et al. has directed that this partial settlement notice be made available because you may be a Class Member and if you are a class member you have a right to know about the proposed settlement of the Action with the Nathanson Defendants, and about all of their options, before the Court decides whether or not to approve the proposed class settlement.

To view the related documents see below:

Class Notice click here,

Class Notice (Espanol) click here,

Objection form click here,

Objection form (Espanol) click here,

Opt-out form click here,

Opt-out form (Espanol) click here

The Lawyers' Committee Supports Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez as Next Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Mr. Perez has worked tirelessly during his tenure with the Civil Rights Division (CRT) at the Department of Justice (DOJ) to serve the American people and protect their civil rights and we firmly believe he will be equally dedicated and committed as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

Click Here to View Complete Letter

Silverstein Receives George N. Lindsay Civil Rights Legal Fellowship, Will Focus on Fair Housing

Wed, 10 Apr 2013 00:00:00 -0500

Thomas Silverstein, a third-year law student at the University of Virginia School of Law, has been selected as the 2013-14 recipient of the prestigious George N. Lindsay Civil Rights Legal Fellowship by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.

For his one-year fellowship, Silverstein will be working in Washington, D.C., at the Lawyers' Committee, a national civil rights organization, to ensure that states and localities that receive federal housing funds meet their duty under the Fair Housing Act to promote residential integration.

"I will be working to implement what we're calling a holistic approach to enforcing the Fair Housing Act’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing," Silverstein said. "I will be doing this through a mix of administrative enforcement, policy advocacy and transactional legal services to community-based organizations."

The 1968 Fair Housing Act includes a provision requiring that all federal housing and community development funds to be used by states and localities in a manner that ensures fair housing, essentially meaning the money should be used to promote residential integration.

The law was rarely enforced during its first few decades on the books, Silverstein said. In the past three to four years, however, the federal government has significantly improved its enforcement of the affirmatively furthering fair housing requirement. In 2009, for example, the government reached a major settlement with Westchester County, N.Y., that required the locality to create hundreds of affordable housing units for low and moderate-income people in predominantly white communities and to aggressively this new housing to minorities.

"Because this duty wasn't properly enforced in the first decades after it was put into place, the problem that it was intended to address hasn't been addressed yet," Silverstein said. "There has been some decline in levels of residential racial segregation over the past few decades, but it has been very gradual and most of our metropolitan areas remain segregated by race."

Silverstein said integrating communities remains important because people living in economically depressed and segregated neighborhoods tend to be disadvantaged in numerous ways, including access to high-quality schools, health care, job opportunities and even full-service supermarkets.

"There's just so many different parts of life where the fact of where you live can influence how things turn out," he said.

The Lawyers' Committee awards the George N. Lindsay Fellowship annually to provide an opportunity for recent law school graduates to gain experience in civil rights practice, working on issues such as voting rights, fair housing, employment discrimination, education, community and economic development, and environmental justice. The fellowship pays a stipend of $42,000, supplemented by a loan forgiveness payment of $2,000 and payment of bar review and fees. UVA Law graduates who work in public service also are eligible for the Virginia Loan Forgiveness Program.

Prior to enrolling at UVA Law, Silverstein worked at the Lawyers' Committee as a legal assistant for two years after graduating from the College of William & Mary.

Joe Rich, director of the Lawyers' Committee's fair housing project, said Silverstein was "outstanding" in that job and played an important role in furthering the organization's fair housing and community development projects. Now, he said, the organization is looking forward to seeing Silverstein advance the enforcement of fair housing laws that prohibit discrimination which creates barriers to residential desegregation as well as require affirmative steps to promote integration.

"It is an area on which the Fair Housing Project has been prioritizing in recent years and Tom’s joining us as a Lindsay Fellow will strengthen that commitment," Rich said.

UVA Law professor Richard Schragger called Silverstein a "terrific law student who combines intellectual curiosity with a deep commitment to public interest lawyering."

"I can't think of a more deserving recipient of the George Lindsay Fellowship, and I expect great things from him in the future," he said.

HUD Releases Long-Awaited Regulation Implementing The Fair Housing Act's Discriminatory Effects Standard

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 00:00:00 -0600

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers’ Committee) applauds the release today of the final Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulation entitled “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Discriminatory Effects Standard.” The proposed regulation, first published for comment in November 2011, formalizes the long and consistent interpretation of the Fair Housing Act by HUD, which has repeatedly determined that housing policies and practices can be determined to be discriminatory not simply through their intent, but also by their effect.

This interpretation is consistent with the uniform interpretation of the Act by the federal courts of appeals, which have consistently held for over forty years that liability under the Act may be established based on a showing that a neutral policy or practice either has a disparate impact on a protected group, or creates, perpetuates, or increases segregation. Moreover, it creates a uniform national standard that should help harmonize the somewhat differing standards for proving discriminatory effect claims that now exist between some of the circuit courts of appeals. The Lawyers’ Committee applauds HUD for providing a long needed regulation on the propriety of disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act and to clarify the standard of proof.

“This regulation will foster the goals of the Fair Housing Act and benefit the clients and constituents of our organization. It provides a national standard for courts, housing providers, municipalities and the financial and insurance industries,” said Lawyers' Committee President and Executive Director Barbara R. Arnwine.

Where you live determines where you work and how you get there, your access to healthcare, and the school your child attends. Unfortunately, policies and practices still exist that – intentionally or unintentionally – keep some people out of housing they can afford simply because of who they are. As a national leader in combating housing and lending discrimination, the Lawyers’ Committee has long worked to eliminate housing discrimination and promote inclusive communities through private enforcement of the Fair Housing Act.

“The importance of the discriminatory effect standard to effective and vigorous fair housing enforcement cannot be overstated,” said Joseph Rich, director of the Lawyers' Committee's Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project. “This is illustrated by the breadth of cases relying on disparate impact claims.”

Examples of cases relying on disparate impact claims are numerous and far-reaching and include:

· Cases attacking zoning and land-use policies and decisions which result in both discriminatory denial of housing to minorities and the perpetuation of residential segregation;

· A wide variety of cases attacking lending and insurance policies which adversely affect groups protected by the Act; and

· Cases challenging governmental redevelopment or demolition plans or policies that disproportionately displace minorities by eliminating lower income housing.

The HUD press release on the regulation is available here.

About the Lawyers’ Committee

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (“LCCRUL”), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. We are celebrating our 50th anniversary in 2013 as we continue our quest of “Moving America Toward Justice.” The principal mission of the Lawyers' Committee is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending; community development; employment; voting; education and environmental justice. For more information about the LCCRUL, visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

###

Note to Media: To coordinate interview opportunities with Lawyers’ Committee staff, please contact Stacie Royster, 202-445-6101 or sroyster@lawyerscommittee.org.

Foreclosure crisis spawns a wave of rescue scams

Fri, 18 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

Carolyn Murray was in trouble. The Bowie resident and information technology worker had lost her job as a result of the recession and was beginning to fall behind on her mortgage payments.

Around mid-2011, Murray, now 64, attended a seminar claiming to be sponsored by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There she was given the name of an out-of-state law firm that might be able to help her.

“I hadn’t understood that a lawyer would be involved,” she says, “but they said, ‘This person will help you get a modification.’ ”

It seemed legitimate: Working through a lawyer sounded official, and Murray’s online research turned up a number of strong ratings for the firm. So she saved and borrowed the $4,000 required for the fee and turned it over to the company, which promised to act as a liaison between her and the bank.

Six months passed, but the company had done nothing for Murray — and had begun asking for more money. “They said they now needed to go into mediation with the bank,” she recalled. “They said, ‘We can’t do that unless you pay us another $7,000.’ Of course, I didn’t have that, so I couldn’t pay.”

Murray, it turned out, had been scammed.

She’s in good company: In the same way that the housing bubble produced several predatory lenders offering mortgages that were too good to be true, its successor, the foreclosure crisis, has led to a wave of rescue scams. Preying on desperate homeowners who are late on their mortgages, fraudsters tout their expertise and special connections with banks in guaranteeing that they will be able to help clients — for a price, of course.

Despite investigations by federal agencies and nonprofit organizations, the scams are common nationwide, particularly in areas hit hard by the housing crisis.

“There’s more illegitimate than legitimate help out there,” says Yolanda McGill, who works for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and coordinates the national Loan Modification Scam Prevention Network. But gauging the motives of someone offering aid isn’t impossible, and consumer advocates say educating the public is their best weapon in a fight in which the bad guys have an overwhelming financial advantage.

Washington area struggles

Although foreclosures aren’t front-and-center news anymore, the region is still dealing with a high number of homeowners in hot water. In June, according to the Urban Institute, 7 percent of Washington-area homeowners with first mortgages were more than 90 days late on a payment or were in foreclosure proceedings — a number that has held fairly steady during the past two years.

Peter Spohn, a supervisory special agent for the FBI’s Washington field office, says several types of scams target troubled homeowners. A lawyer might claim that the initial mortgage process was conducted illegally and offer to sue on behalf of the homeowner, who pays legal fees but never sees any action. Or a real estate agent may offer to help sell the house of someone whose property is worth less than they paid for it but eventually pockets most of the payment.

But, Spohn says, “the highest number of cases we’ve had were foreclosure rescue scams,” in which an individual or company offers to help a homeowner get a loan modification. Although the setup may vary, the scammer will usually tell the homeowner to stop making payments to the bank, saying that for a fee of $2,000 to $5,000, he or she will work with the lender directly. Several months later, after hearing nothing about the loan, the homeowner realizes that the offer was a fraud and that he or she is now seriously behind on the mortgage.

Spohn says the Washington area is in the top 12 states or regions for foreclosure-rescue fraud (California and Florida are the worst), particularly communities where housing values have fallen most precipitously in the past few years, such as Prince George’s, Fairfax and Prince William counties. Racial minorities are overwhelmingly targeted — African Americans, who were disproportionately affected by the housing crisis and are, therefore, more vulnerable to offers of help, and Latinos and Asians, because they often live in insular communities, where word-of-mouth recommendations go a long way.

The ads are ubiquitous, arriving in the mail, posted on the Internet and on billboards (“We Buy Houses!”), and even running on language-specific radio and television stations such as Radio America and Telemundo, though representatives for both stations say they closely vet advertisers.

“Most of our clients have been scammed in one form or another,” says Manuel Ochoa, regional director of homeownership for the Latino Economic Development Corp., which has offices in the District and Wheaton.

Of course, the more desperate the borrower, the better the swindler’s chances of gaining a foothold. In some cases, homeowners may have already met with a legitimate housing counselor, only to be told that their mortgage is too expensive for them to stay in the house. “That’s not what homeowners want to hear,” says Angie Rodgers, director of the Capital Area Foreclosure Network, “so they’ll keep shopping around until they hear what they want to hear.”

And the con artists will say just about anything to reel in a customer. The National Fair Housing Alliance has spent three years impersonating troubled homeowners in order to investigate foreclosure-rescue fraud. Staff members have found that no matter how implausible the figures they present as income and expenditures, the scammers invariably promise success in obtaining a modification. Under the guise of whatever housing policy is being promoted by the government at the time, they often pledge that they can get the borrower an interest rate of 3 percent or less.

What makes the situation more difficult is the surprisingly large number of lawyers involved in many scams, experts say. In early 2011, the Federal Trade Commission banned the collection of upfront fees for mortgage relief but excepted law firms from the rule. As a result, housing advocates quickly saw a rise in advertisements for foreclosure assistance backed by law firms.

Fooled by fees

Many consumers assume that paying a fee means that they will receive better service, says McGill, coordinator of the Loan Modification Scam Prevention Network, and “attorneys add legitimacy and make a homeowner less skeptical. It’s a big, big problem.”

Part of that problem is that not every lawyer offering to help negotiate a mortgage is fraudulent. There’s a vast amount of gray area: Some law firms that charge money for mortgage reduction assistance actually do make repeated efforts to contact banks; others conduct legitimate business while offering shady services on the side.

As a result, enforcement efforts generally move slowly. Locating and building a case against a particular scammer is time-consuming and labor-intensive, particularly given that many of the firms are far from the states where they advertise. In 2011, the FBI’s Washington field office had just one conviction on a loan modification or mortgage elimination scheme; in 2012, it had three.

Other groups, including federal agencies such as the FTC and HUD and nonprofit groups such as the National Fair Housing Alliance and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, track and sometimes pursue cases. But because many homeowners are embarrassed about having been duped and worried about potential retaliation, they are not always eager to come forward.

Which is why housing advocates agree that public education is the most important effort in this battle. The main message they broadcast? “Don’t ever pay for these services,” says Rodgers, leader of the Capital Area Foreclosure Network. She adds that the many free housing counselors who have been trained and certified by HUD have as much knowledge of the mortgage and banking system as anyone in the field.

Still, until the housing market substantially changes, distressed homeowners will probably continue to fall for offers of assistance that provide a shred of hope. And not all will be as lucky as Carolyn Murray. After losing $4,000, Murray — with the help of a housing counselor from Maryland’s nonprofit Housing Initiative Partnership — contacted her bank directly.

After many months of discussions, it turned out that Murray, who in the meantime had found a job, was eligible for a huge principal reduction of her mortgage through the National Mortgage Settlement, which was negotiated in February between the government and five major lenders.

Murray sees herself as having won the jackpot in mortgage modifications. But she’s still angry at the swindlers who took advantage of her desperation and conned her out of thousands of dollars. “It’s a scam, and they know it’s a scam, and they should pay,” she says.

Abrams is a freelance writer.

Avoiding Loan-Modification Hoaxes

Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:00:00 -0600

HOMEOWNERS wary of being taken in by bogus “loan modification specialists” should not assume that a law office is the safest conduit to their lender. Consumer advocates say a growing number of fraudulent modification services involve lawyers, or people who say they are lawyers.

Increasingly, lawyers are lending “their names, their offices, their credentials” to fraudulent operations that vaunt superior skills in obtaining loan modifications, said Linda Mullenbach, a senior counsel at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Washington.

Last month, the Lawyers’ Committee filed a lawsuit in Suffolk County, New York, alleging that a series of companies run by Rory M. Alarcon, a lawyer licensed in New York, defrauded 17 homeowners out of tens of thousands of dollars. The suit claims that the companies promised owners loan modifications and lower mortgage payments in return for thousands upfront. “To our knowledge, no one received the services that they were promised,” said Ms. Mullenbach, who works on the panel’s Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project.

Only three of the homeowners suing Mr. Alarcon live in New York; the rest are scattered across nine states. They are claiming losses from $2,500 to $8,000 apiece.

“These are not individuals who are unsophisticated — some have been extremely well educated,” Ms. Mullenbach said. “But they were looking for solutions for how to save their homes.”

Mike Furman, a lawyer who says he is representing Mr. Alarcon, said it would be premature to comment on the lawsuit. The Web site for R.M.A. Legal Network, one of the entities named in the suit, said the firm was no longer accepting new clients.

This is the seventh modification-fraud lawsuit the Lawyers’ Committee has filed in Long Island since 2011. Three of the other lawsuits also involve lawyers, according to Ms. Mullenbach.

While Federal Trade Commission rules and New York state law generally prohibit demanding upfront fees for mortgage relief services, there is a narrow exception for lawyers. They may charge clients in advance for assistance if the service is part of their general practice of law, and not outside of that practice.

Certainly, many lawyers provide legitimate foreclosure-avoidance services. But Ms. Mullenbach advises borrowers that “when you go to a lawyer and his sole business is loan modifications, that’s a real signal.”

She notes that some bogus operations have been quick to change their practices as homeowners get wise to their tactics. Instead of selling loan modification services, they are advertising so-called loan workouts and forensic loan audits. Some are even posing as nonprofit groups.

Services that falsely advertise legal expertise have also been a problem. “We’ve seen an increase in our overall percentage of complaints involving people who are claiming to be attorneys,” said Josh Fuhrman, the senior vice president for government and community relations of the Homeownership Preservation Foundation, which operates a hot line for homeowners.

The Homeownership Preservation Foundation and the Lawyers’ Committee both belong to a coalition of public and private agencies that maintain a national database of loan-modification complaints. Since March 2010, some 28,000 homeowners have reported potential fraud. Their reported monetary losses total around $66 million.

Mr. Fuhrman notes that the counseling services offered through his foundation are free. So are the counseling services from housing agencies certified by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

“People struggling with their mortgages usually don’t have the resources to pay for what can be done by a nonprofit housing counselor,” he said. That makes high-fee fraud all the more deplorable, he added, calling fraudulent services “the knockout punch” for borrowers on the brink of foreclosure.

Minorities Disproportionately Impacted by Distressed Homeowner Fraud

Sun, 16 Dec 2012 00:00:00 -0600

Lawyers' Committee Brings Class Action Suit Against Network of Loan Modification Scammers

Wed, 14 Nov 2012 00:00:00 -0600

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts:

Stacie B.Royster Dorsey & Whitney Contact
Director of Communications Kent Schmidt or Lynnda McGlinn
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law Dorsey & Whitney LLP
202-662-8317 (714) 800-1400
sroyster@lawyerscommittee.org schmidt.kent@dorsey.com
mcglinn.lynnda@dorsey.com

Lawyers' Committee and Dorsey & Whitney LLP File Class Action Lawsuit Targeting Loan Modification Scam Acitvity in Riverside County, California

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA – The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers’ Committee) and pro bono counsel Dorsey & Whitney LLP (Dorsey) filed Williams v. Premiere Loan Services, Inc., Case Number RIC1215573, a class action lawsuit in Riverside County, California, against a network of for-profit loan modification companies and associated individuals. The case is brought by six named plaintiffs, who live in California and Nevada, on behalf of a class alleged to include over 100 homeowners. The suit alleges that the defendants, who are based in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties in California, defrauded vulnerable homeowners out of tens of thousands of dollars by inducing them to pay thousands of dollars in up-front fees for mortgage loan modification and related legal services that were never provided. Plaintiffs seek both monetary damages, including recovery of the illegal up-front fees, and injunctive relief to put an end to the deceptive practices of the defendants. The Lawyers’ Committee and Dorsey are representing the plaintiffs free of charge. (Click here to view Complaint.)

The defendants named in the Complaint are Premiere Loan Services, Inc.; Raed Farraj; Nathaniel Genis; DKNZ Marketing & Media, Inc. d/b/a/ National Bailout Application Assistance; Samer J. Farraj; Ernest Auger; George Faraj; Emerge Financial Advisors, LLC; Thomas Duck; and Larry Foster. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants, in exchange for upfront fees ranging from $1500 to $3000, stated they would work with plaintiffs’ lenders to obtain mortgage loan modifications that would reduce their monthly payments. In all instances, defendants promised a refund if unable to secure a loan modification. Defendants often guaranteed they would obtain a loan modification or touted an 80% or 90% success rate. But instead of securing the loan modifications, the Complaint alleges that the defendants never performed any work on behalf of the plaintiffs. Rather, the defendants quickly became almost impossible to reach, and even closed at least one of their offices without providing any notice of a new/different location. The plaintiffs’ claims against the defendants include fraud, breach of contract, elder financial abuse, and failure to translate a contract when negotiated in a language other than English.

“This case provides yet another example of the continuing impact of loan modification scams on financially distressed homeowners who are trying to save their homes,” said Linda Mullenbach, senior counsel of the Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project of the Lawyers’ Committee. “We hope this class action, our second class action filed in California and our third lawsuit filed in California related to mortgage modification schemes, will not only provide some measure of relief to the scores of homeowners who—as a result of this scam—have lost thousands of dollars in fees and suffered damage to their credit, or even had their homes foreclosed upon, but will also put an end to the deceptive practices of these defendants and discourage others from engaging in this type of fraudulent activity.”

“Dorsey is very pleased to be playing a part in the Lawyers’ Committee’s important efforts to restore some measure of relief to those in our communities who have been victimized by unscrupulous practices,” said Lynnda McGlinn, Dorsey attorney and pro bono coordinator for the Dorsey & Whitney Southern California office.

Williams et al. v. Premiere Loan Services, Inc. et al., RIC Case Number 1215573 is the Lawyers’ Committee’s tenth loan modification scam lawsuit filed nationally as part of the Lawyers’ Committee’s work with the Loan Modification Scam Prevention Network (LMSPN). The LMSPN is a broad coalition that also includes representatives from key governmental agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the offices of numerous state Attorneys General.

Since the launch of the national LMSPN database in February 2010 through October 31, 2012, over 27,000 homeowners nationwide have reported loan modification scams or potential scams that have resulted in losses totaling nearly $65 million. Through the end of October 2012, more than 5,500 of these reports have been submitted by California homeowners, who have reported losses totaling nearly $20 million in fees paid to alleged loan modification scammers.

Homeowners who believe they have been victims of a scam are encouraged to call 888-995-HOPE (4673) or visit www.preventloanscams.org and click the “Report a Scam!” link.

Read more about our loan modification scam litigation here:

http://www.lawyerscommittee.org/projects/fair_housing/page?id=0107

# # #

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. We are celebrating our 50^th anniversary in 2013 as we continue our quest of “Moving America Toward Justice.” The principal mission of the Lawyers' Committee is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending, community development, employment; voting; education and environmental justice. For more information about the LCCRUL, visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

About Dorsey & Whitney LLP

Clients have relied on Dorsey since 1912 as a valued business partner. With 19 locations in the United States, Canada, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region, Dorsey provides an integrated, proactive approach to its clients' legal and business needs. Dorsey represents a number of the world's most successful companies from a wide range of industries, including leaders in the financial services, life sciences, technology, agribusiness and energy sectors, as well as major non-profit and government entities.

Mortgage modification scam watchdog cheers federal crackdown

Wed, 10 Oct 2012 00:00:00 -0500

A foreclosure sign hangs on a fence in front of a foreclosed home in 2011 in Richmond, Calif. (Justin Sullivan / Getty Images / October 10, 2012)

WASHINGTON --Since early 2010, a leading civil rights group has helped compile a database of approximately 26,000 complaints about mortgage modification scams -- attempts by fraudsters to take advantage of those hardest hit by the housing market meltdown.

The people making those complaints have reported losses of $63 million to the National Loan Modification Scam Database. And the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, which manages the database, has filed 10 civil suits in conjunction with other organizations to try to halt mortgage assistance operations in California and New York.

The group said it was happy to hear that federal officials were cracking down on the scams with criminal charges, which adds another dimension to the fight in addition to civil fines.

“For some of these folks, the fines might be the cost of doing business,” said Yolanda McGill, senior counsel in the Fair Housing and Lending Project at the lawyers' group. “So the risk of jail time is important in all the efforts going on to stop this.”

U.S. Atty. Gen. Eric H. Holder and other officials on Tuesday said the government's Distressed Homeowner Initiative had filed criminal charges against 530 people during the fiscal year that ended Oct. 1.

The defendants were accused of defrauding about 73,000 underwater homeowners of a total of $1 billion nationwide.

"Distressed homeowner schemes have displaced loan origination fraud as the most common type of mortgage fraud in many areas of the country," said Kevin Perkins, the FBI's associate deputy director, who was among the officials announcing the results of the crackdown.

In addition to criminal charges, there have been 110 federal civil cases filed against more than 150 defendants. Those cases allege that an additional 15,000 victims were bilked out of a combined $37 million by mortgage-assistance scams.

Even as the housing market shows signs of a rebound, the stream of complaints about those scams has continued, McGill said. The database received 1,005 complaints in September, with the most -- 169 -- coming from California.

“This type of fraud is a little bit like whack-a-mole ... and these outfits engaged in this are making money hand over fist,” she said.

The database is a project of the Loan Modification Scam Prevention Network, a national coalition of government agencies, nonprofit organizations and service providers that includes the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Federal officials, who have access to the database, told the lawyers' group this year that they were going to focus more on fraud against distressed homeowners, said Linda Mullenbach, also a senior counsel in the Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project.

“Any type of assitance to shut these operations down is very much valued,” she said.

District Court Denies and Grants Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment in Long Island Exclusionary Zoning Case

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0600

District Court Denies and Grants Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment in Long Island Exclusionary Zoning Case

On February 15, 2012, the district court entered an order on pending motions for summary judgment in our longstanding exclusionary zoning case, MHANY, et al., v. County of Nassau, and Village of Garden City., et al. (E.D.N.Y.). This case was filed against Nassau County, the Village of Garden City, and the Garden City Board of Trustees in 2005 and alleges intentional discrimination and disparate impact violations of the Fair Housing Act (FHA) with respect to Garden City’s adoption of a zoning designation that prevented the development of affordable housing on a 25 acre parcel of land that Nassau County had put up for sale, and in Nassau County’s acquiescence and support of this zoning decision.

The district court’s 101-page decision denies the Garden City Defendants’ motion, discussing in detail facts that strongly suggest that the Village’s zoning decision was intentionally discriminatory and had a clear disparate impact on minorities in violation of the FHA. The court granted Nassau County’s summary judgment motion despite its acquiescence in the Village’s zoning decision, finding that the authority to make zoning decisions rested solely with the Village, not the County. The court also granted summary judgment for the County on another claim that the County had failed to affirmatively further fair housing in violation of Section 808 of the FHA through, among other things, a long policy of locating affordable housing in minority neighborhoods, thereby exacerbating residential segregation. The court did not reach the merits of that claim, because it held that there is neither an explicit nor implicit private right of action to enforce this provision of the FHA, nor can it be enforced through Section 1983. The case will now be set for trial against the Garden City Defendants only.

Click here to read the full opinion.

Idaho Attorney General Warns of Mortgage Settlement Scams

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0600

Nationwide, scammers posing as bank workers and settlement administrators have been scamming homeowners into providing bank account numbers and credit card information by telling them that they have money from the recent multistate mortgage servicer settlement to put into their accounts.

"Consumers should never give their bank account or credit card numbers to someone who calls them," Idaho Attorney General Wasden said. "The people and organizations who are part of this settlement will never call asking for [that information]."

Attorney General Wasden has also warned homeowners to avoid online advertisements that offer to help borrowers secure loan modifications for a fee. In Idaho, it is illegal to charge for loan modification services. Consumers in financial distress have many free counseling options, including the Homeowner’s HOPE Hotline, 888-995-HOPE.

Read the Full Idaho Statesmen Article

Some Consumers to Receive Restitution for Alleged Foreclosure Scam

Tue, 21 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0600

In Ft. Lauderdale Florida, the state has collected $59,000 to distribute to 430 victims of an alleged loan scam involving three Delray Beach Companies. This settlement resolves the accusation that Home Owner Protection Economics Inc., DC Financial Group, Deleverage America Inc., and their owners Dennis Fischer and Christopher S. Godfrey charged up-front fees for mortgage rescue services, but failed to perform the actions that they were paid for.

The owners allegedly charged struggling homeowners up to $2,000. Fisher, Godfrey and their companies are permanently prohibited from engaging in any loan modification or mortgage associated rescue services from this point forward.

Victims have until March 12 to return a claim form to the Attorney General’s Office with proof of payment to one of the companies named in this article.

If you wish to file a claim to Attorney General Pam Bondi please follow this link:

Citizen Services Contact Form.

Read the Full Sun Sentinel Article

City of St. Paul Withdraws Petition in Fair Housing Case Before the Supreme Court

Wed, 15 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0600

On February 10, 2012, the City of St. Paul withdrew its appeal of the important fair housing case pending before the Supreme Court -- Magner v. Gallagher – and on February 14^th the Court formally dismissed the case. The case raised an issue which had not been addressed by the court below -- whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”). The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (“Lawyers’ Committee”), all eight of its affiliates and sixteen other civil rights organizations had filed an amicus curiae brief on January 30^th arguing that disparate impact claims were cognizable under the FHA, noting that for nearly forty years every court of appeals without exception had recognized such claims.

The City of St. Paul issued a statement saying while it "likely would have won" at the Supreme Court, "such a result could completely eliminate 'disparate impact' civil rights enforcement, including under the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. This would undercut important and necessary civil rights cases throughout the nation. The risk of such an unfortunate outcome is the primary reason the city has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition." This withdrawal of the petition reinstates the Eight Circuit’s decision in the case, which had determined that the disparate impact claim should be heard by the district court on its merits.

The Lawyers’ Committee applauds this resolution of the case. Disparate impact claims have been accepted unanimously in all courts of appeals for almost forty years and the issue had not been considered or argued in the Magner case in the courts below. There still has not been a full trial to develop the facts of the case or a decision on the merits of the claim. As such, this was not an appropriate case to address this important issue; and the City of St. Paul’s decision to return to the trial court is the appropriate way to proceed.

Protecting fair housing is crucial to ensuring equal opportunity and strengthens our communities and our nation. Everyone deserves a fair chance to live in the neighborhood of his or her choice, free of unnecessary barriers. The FHA is one of the country’s bedrock civil rights laws and disparate impact analysis is crucial to the FHA’s effective enforcement and in promoting equality and fairness in housing. When a policy has a discriminatory effect and it is unjustified or unnecessary, the disparate impact approach says it must be set aside in favor of a policy that is both fair and effective. It is the basis of several important cases brought by the Lawyers’ Committee challenging discriminatory barriers to making badly needed affordable housing available to minority households and to promoting residential desegregation.

Click here to read recent news realated to Magner case

Click here to read the amcius brief

FTC Takes Actions Against Mortgage Relief Scammers Who Harmed Thousands of Consumers

Tue, 14 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0600

The Federal Trade Commission led a suit against U.S. Mortgage Funding Inc., Debt Remedy Partners Inc., Lower My Debts.com LLC, David Mahler, Jamen Lachs, and John Incandela, Jr. in its continuing campaign against scam artists who target homeowners behind in their mortgage payments or facing foreclosure. All but two defendants settled with the FTC and two received default judgments.

The defendants were charged with targeting vulnerable homeowners through direct mail, telemarketing, and email. They allegedly assured homeowners that they could prevent foreclosure for an upfront fee, and promised a refund if they failed. However, these groups are accused of taking the money and running.

The court’s ruling bans all of the defendants from providing mortgage relief services, and two from debt relief services. In addition, a judgment of $17 million was raised against David Mahler, $3.5 million against Jamen Lachs, more than $18 million against John Incandela, Jr, and more than $19 million against U.S. Mortgage Funding, Inc. and Lower My Debts.Com LLC.

Read the Full FTC.gov Article

$1 Billion to Be Paid by Bank of America to the United States

Fri, 10 Feb 2012 00:00:00 -0600

On February 10, 2012, the U.S government announced that it would resolve its claims against Bank of America, Countrywide Financial Corporation, and certain Countrywide affiliates for allegedly engaging in mortgage fraud. These lenders are required to pay the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) $500 million directly and another $500 million that will be used to fund a loan modification program for Countrywide borrowers who are underwater on their mortgages.

Bank of America, Countrywide, and its affiliates issued tens of thousands of FHA-insured loans to unqualified borrowers, causing borrowers and the FHA to endure hundreds of millions in damages.Of the settlement, U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York Loretta Lynch said, “It also puts lenders on notice that they will face serious financial consequences for violating their obligations under the FHA’s programs.”

Inspector General Montoya believes that this decision will encourage lending institutions that have the authority to directly endorse FHA-insured mortgages adhere to FHA standards much more closely in the future.

Read Full Stop Fraud.gov Article

Lawyers' Committee Files Amicus Brief Supporting Disparate Impact Claims Under the Fair Housing Act

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0600

On January 30, 2012 the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, all eight of its affiliates and 16 other civil rights organizations filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Magner v. Gallagher. The case presents two important questions: whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and, if so, what is the proper mode of analysis under such a claim. The importance of these issues to fair housing enforcement makes this the most important fair housing case heard by the Supreme Court in decades.

The Lawyers’ Committee brief argues that the text and legislative history of the Fair Housing Act supports the conclusion, uniformly accepted in the all courts of appeals for nearly four decades that the FHA authorizes pursuit of disparate-impact claims. Moreover, the brief argues that the longstanding administrative interpretation adopted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development reflects its decision to interpret the Act as authorizing disparate-impact claims and its understanding that a narrower interpretation would prevent accomplishment of Congress’ goals, a decision to which the Court should give deference. Furthermore, the brief argues that this interpretation would not conflict with the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws.

To read the amicus brief, click here.

Lawyers' Committee Submits Support Letter for HUD Proposed Regulation Concerning Disparate Impact Claims Under Fair Housing Act

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:00:00 -0600

On January 17, 2012 the Lawyers’ Committee, six of its affiliates and eighteen other civil rights organizations submitted a comment letter in full support of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s proposed regulation establishing that violations of the Fair Housing Act may be proved through a disparate impact analysis.

HUD’s proposed regulation is a very important and necessary step in ensuring that the nation’s housing is available to all, regardless of protected class status. It formalizes the long and consistent interpretation of the Act by HUD which has repeatedly determined that disparate impact claims are cognizable under the anti-discrimination provisions of the Act. This interpretation is consistent with the uniform interpretation of the Act by all federal courts of appeals which have held unanimously, for almost forty years, that liability under the Act may be established based on a showing that a neutral policy or practice either has a disparate impact on a protected group or creates, perpetuates, or increases segregation. The Supreme Court is now considering a case raising this important issue and HUD’s formalizing its long and consistent interpretation of the Act strengthens the argument that the Court should follow the consistent determination of HUD and all courts of appeals. “This regulation will foster the goals of the Fair Housing Act and is important to formalizing the consistent and uniform understanding of the standard of proof for proving violations of the Act,” said the Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project Director Joe Rich.

A copy of the comment letter can be found here.

About the Lawyers' Committee

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (LCCRUL), a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. The principal mission of the Lawyers' Committee is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending, community development, employment discrimination, voting, education and environmental justice. For more information about the LCCRUL, visit www.lawyerscommittee.org.

Lawyers' Committee Praises the Department of Justice's Settlement of Fair Lending Case against Countrywide Financial Corporation

Fri, 23 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0600

The Lawyers' Committee applauds the Department of Justice's filing on December 21, 2011 of the largest residential fair lending settlement in history to resolve allegations by the Department that Countrywide Financial Corporation and its subsidiaries engaged in a widespread pattern or practice of discrimination against qualified African-American and Hispanic borrowers in their mortgage lending from 2004 through 2008. Countrywide was acquired by the Bank of America after this period.

The settlement provides $335 million in compensation for victims of Countrywide's discrimination during a period when Countrywide originated millions of residential mortgage loans as one of the nation's largest single-family mortgage lenders. The complaint alleges that Countrywide systematically and intentionally engaged in unfair lending policies and practices which also had a disparate impact on African American and Hispanic customers in its loan pricing practices in violation of both the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. Through these discriminatory policies and practices, Countrywide charged more than 200,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers higher fees and interest rates than non-Hispanic white borrowers in both its retail and wholesale lending. Moreover, the complaint alleged that these policies and practices resulted in steering thousands of African-American and Hispanic borrowers into subprime mortgages when non-Hispanic white borrowers with similar credit profiles received prime loans.

The Department's complaint also alleged that Countrywide violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by discriminating on the basis of marital status against non-applicant spouses of borrowers by encouraging them to sign away their home ownership rights.

"The filing of this case and the record setting settlement is a very important step forward both for fair lending enforcement and for addressing the discriminatory lending practices which was a prime factor in the country's ongoing foreclosure crisis," said the Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project Director Joe Rich. "Minority borrowers have been the victims of these types of discriminatory practices and the foreclosure crisis which grew out of these practices has resulted in the greatest loss of wealth in minority communities in the history of this country."

To read the Department of Justice's press release click here.

About the Lawyers' Committee

Lawyers' Committee and Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center Release "People's Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing for New Orleans"

Wed, 21 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0600

NEW ORLEANS, LA - On December 21, 2011, the Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center (GNOFHAC) and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law released a report entitled “People's Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing for New Orleans .”

The report is the result of a collaboration among the Lawyers' Committee, GNOFHAC, and more than a dozen local, state, and national service providers, affordable housing developers, and advocates. The "People's AI" provides recommendations, based on best practices and guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), on how the City of New Orleans can draft a thorough and effective Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, as required by the Fair Housing Act. It also provides a thorough critique of the City's current Analysis of Impediments and suggests steps to improve it.

In April of this year, GNOFHAC and the Lawyers' Committee had released a handbook entitled "Strategies to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing: Proposals for the City of New Orleans Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance (CZO) and Beyond." The handbook recommended strategies the City Planning Commission could adopt in the new zoning ordinance to overcome impediments to fair housing choice.

In addition to promoting integration and healthier communities, understanding and overcoming barriers to housing choice and drafting an effective AI would help the city fulfill its duty to affirmatively further fair housing, as required with federal funds such as Community Development Block Grants.

The "People's AI" is the latest product of an innovative partnership between GNOFHAC and the Lawyers' Committee, which, among other things, enforces fair housing laws throughout the country and provides legal assistance to nonprofit organizations, particularly in the Gulf Coast region.

###

The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, was formed in 1963 at the request of President John F. Kennedy to involve the private bar in providing legal services to address racial discrimination. The principal mission of the Lawyers’ Committee is to secure, through the rule of law, equal justice under law, particularly in the areas of fair housing and fair lending, community development, employment; voting; education and environmental justice.

The Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center (GNOFHAC) is a private nonprofit organization. GNOFHAC is dedicated to eliminating housing discrimination and furthering equal housing opportunities through education, outreach, advocacy, and enforcement of fair housing laws across the metro New Orleans and Baton Rouge areas. The activities described in this release were privately funded.

Advocates Submit Comments on FTA's Environmental Justice and Title VI Circulars

Wed, 07 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0600

The Lawyers' Committee and diverse national, statewide, and local organizations and scholars that work on transportation justice have submitted public comments to the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on the proposed new Circulars on Title VI and Environmental Justice.

To read the comment letter, click here.

Feds target HAMP scammers bilking owners

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 00:00:00 -0600

"Once again, mortgage servicers are hitting ordinary New York homeowners where it hurts.

The latest evidence is widespread scams tied to the Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, which was supposed to help up to 4 million troubled borrowers avoid foreclosure.

Servicers, which manage loans day to day, have collected a cool $666 million from the government for participating in HAMP. Too bad servicers make the HAMP application process so difficult for the ordinary homeowner, they’ve opened the door to bogus “experts” who claim to help — for a big fee. [...]"

To read the full article at NY Post, click here.

Lawyers' Committee Applauds HUD's Release of Proposed Regulation Concerning Disparate Impact Claims under the Fair Housing Act

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0600

CONTACT:
Stacie B. Royster
202-662-8317, office
202-445-6101, mobile
sroyster@lawyerscommittee.org

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 17, 2011 – The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law released the statement below following the November 16, 2011 issuance of a proposed regulation by HUD concerning disparate impact claims:

On November 16, 2011, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed regulation entitled “Implementation of the Fair Housing Act’s Disparate Impact Standard.” “The Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law applauds today’s publication for providing a definitive interpretation that violations of the Fair Housing Act may be proved through a disparate impact analysis as well as by proof of intentional discrimination,” said Fair Housing and Fair Lending Project Director Joe Rich. “The disparate impact (or discriminatory effect) theory is firmly established by Fair Housing Act case law. Starting 38 years ago, every appellate court that has addressed this issue, without exception, has found that the Fair Housing Act provides for disparate impact claims. Adding HUD’s interpretation through this regulation to this long line of court precedent clarifies and strengthens the ability of both the private and public sectors to vigorously enforce the Act.”

“The importance of this regulation cannot be overstated,” said Public Policy Director Tanya Clay House. “Courts have long recognized that focusing only on discriminatory intent often permits racial discrimination to go unpunished in the absence of evidence of overt bigotry. Blatant bigoted behavior has been reduced over the years because those who discriminate act more discreetly, making evidence of discriminatory intent harder to find. But this does not mean that racial discrimination has disappeared and this is a key reason why courts have consistently found discrimination can be proved through a discriminatory impact standard that does not require a finding of intent to discriminate.”

The Lawyers’ Committee has a long history of combating housing discrimination and residential segregation and has consistently relied on the disparate impact standard in its housing litigation and advocated for its applicability to fair housing and fair lending claims. Since the Fair Housing Act became law in 1968, residential segregation and isolation of African Americans have continued to be an intractable feature of housing patterns in the United States and, sadly, this segregation did not occur by accident. Rather, the segregation was a product of a complex web of discriminatory policies and actions made since the beginning of the 20th century. Residential segregation has a pernicious impact not just on the ability of minorities to find decent housing, but also on other basic rights such equal educational opportunities, good job opportunities, and a healthy and safe environment in which to live. A primary purpose of the Act was to address this entrenched residential segregation and the disparate impact standard has been critically important to enforcement efforts to combat continued segregation.

In recent years, the Lawyers’ Committee has filed three fair housing cases challenging zoning decisions which blocked the ability of minorities to find affordable housing in high opportunity communities and perpetuated housing segregation. Disparate impact claims are central to each of these cases. Among these cases is an ongoing lawsuit against St. Bernard Parish, which arose in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. St. Bernard Parish blocked affordable housing which would have provided multifamily rental housing in the Parish so badly needed by African American homeowners and renters whose homes had been destroyed in neighboring New Orleans. The district court found a violation of the Fair Housing Act based on the disparate impact claim.

Because of the importance of this standard of proof to vigorous enforcement of the Act, the Lawyers’ Committee has also long advocated for such a regulation and for such a standard in friend of the court briefs in courts of appeal. “The publication of this regulation is critically important at this time,” added Rich. “As recently as last week the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case which will examine whether the consistent interpretation of all courts of appeal that violations of the Fair Housing Act may be proved through a disparate impact analysis is correct. Having HUD, the agency primarily responsible for implementation of the Fair Housing Act, adopt a regulation which confirms that violations of the Fair Housing Act may be proved through disparate impact claims will strengthen efforts in this case to defend the consistent interpretation of all courts of appeals.”

There will be a 60-day period to provide written comments addressing the proposed regulation. The Lawyers’ Committee fully supports this proposed regulation’s imprimatur of disparate impact claims. We will closely examine the substance of the regulation and offer comments concerning the details of the standard proposed. We look forward to expedited consideration of all comments by HUD and issuance of a final regulation as soon as possible.

"The Lawyers' Committee is very pleased to see HUD exercise leadership on this important issue. The publication of today's proposed regulation will help clarify standards of proof under the Fair Housing Act and most importantly strengthen the ability of government agencies and private fair housing advocates to achieve the goals and promise of the Act," Ms. Clay House added. "We encourage civic leaders and citizens to recommit to the goal of fair housing and residential desegregation because this is a goal central to equal opportunity not only in housing, but also in education, employment, and overall quality of life."

About the Lawyers' Committee

###

WSJ: "Mortgage Scams in a Weak Housing Market"

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 00:00:00 -0600

Lawyers' Committee Senior Counsel Yolanda McGill is quoted in the Wall Street Journal article on "Mortgage Scams in a Weak Housing Market."

Check out the article here or above and read some of our tips for avoiding foreclosure rescue scams below:

HOW TO SPOT A FORECLOSURE RESCUE SCAM

A company/person asks for a fee in advance to work with your lender to modify, refinance or reinstate your mortgage.
A company/person guarantees they can stop a foreclosure or get your loan modified.
A company/person advises you to stop paying your mortgage company and pay them instead.
A company pressures you to sign over the deed to your home or sign any paperwork that you haven't had a chance to read, and you don't fully understand.
A company claims to offer "government-approved" or "official government" loan modifications.
A company/person you don’t know asks you to release personal financial information online or over the phone.

HOW TO REPORT A FORECLOSURE RESCUE SCAM

CALL 1-888-995-HOPE (4673) OR VISIT www.preventloanscams.org.

LAWYERS' COMMITTEE AND CIVIL RIGHTS PARTNERS FILED AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPREME COURT CASE RAISING IMPORTANT ACCESS TO COURT ISSUE

Wed, 19 Oct 2011 00:00:00 -0500

On October 18, 2011, the Lawyers’ Committee, along with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the National Fair Housing Alliance and the Washington Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs submitted an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in First America Financial Corp. v. Edwards (No. 10-708). This brief was filed in support of the respondent (the plaintiff in the original lawsuit), and argues that Congress has broad rights to give private citizens access to the courts. The case involves a homebuyer who sued a title insurance company under a federal statute that aims to curtail kickbacks and collusion between providers of real estate settlement services (such as title insurance) and settlement or real estate agents. Because the buyer could not show that she had suffered direct financial harm from this transaction, the defendant title insurance company claimed that she had not suffered the “injury in fact” that is constitutionally required for a party to have “standing” to sue in federal court.

This question has important implications for enforcement of civil rights laws, particularly in the fair housing area, where testers can sue an agent or owner under the Fair Housing Act if they are lied to about the availability of housing on the basis of race, even if they have no intention of buying a house. The Supreme Court has held that such testers have standing, largely because through the Fair Housing Act Congress created a right to truthful information about housing, and infringement of that right is an injury. The Committee seeks a ruling for the Edwars respondents in order to maintain the power of Congress to create such rights as a basis for standing in housing and other areas.

To read brief, please click here.

Law and Order: A group of pro bono lawyers are pursuing fraud cases

Fri, 30 Sep 2011 00:00:00 -0500

The October 2011 issue of American Lawyer includes a "Bartalk" spotlight on the great work of the Lawyers' Committee's Loan Modification Scam Prevention Network and the cases it has brought with pro bono partners Davis Polk in New York.

Head over to the American Lawyer website to read the piece.