Legal Helpers Debt

Legal helpers Debt Resolution a non-attorney soliciting business and compensation on behalf of an attorney, it questions the incidental nature of the

15th of Jun, 2011 by User946359

Debt Settlement Agreement, in accordance with its standardized fee schedule and in violation of laws, provided for fees exceeding fifteen percent (15%) of the total debt listed on the contract, including a 17% service fee, a $49 monthly maintenance fee, and a periodic $12.20 trust fee. Standardized Debt Settlement Agreement, in accordance with its standardized fee schedule, and in violation of laws, provided for fees exceeding fifteen percent (15%) of any one payment to be made. StandardizedDebt Settlement Agreement, in accordance with its standardized fee schedule, and in violation of laws , provided for initial charges exceeding twenty-five dollars ($25.00). At the time of marketing and promotion of its debt relief program to Class members, had no intention of performing debt relief services for residents who contracted for their services. They did not advise Class members, f this material fact. At the time of marketing and promotion of debt relief programs to members had no capacity to perform debt relief services for residents who contracted for their services. did not advise of this material fact. At the time of marketing and promotion of its debt relief program to members, was soliciting clients for LHDR. did not advise Class members, that its solicitations were on behalf of a law firm, LHDR. The debt relief program marketed and promoted to residents is a facade masking an unlawful conspiratorial business enterprise involving agreement . Functionally, like numerous other front-end for-profit debt relief companies with whom LHDR has associated itself, falsely and deceptively holds itself out as a business engaged in performing debt relief services for consumers. In fact, front-end
for profit debt relief companies with whom LHDR has associated itself are lead generators acting on behalf ofLHDR and JEM. standardized Debt Settlement Agreement, in this regard, inconspicuously provides that assign the services to be provided under the agreement to any third party . Pursuant to Defendants unified business scheme and agreement, LHDR functionally steps into the shoes of for the purposes of creating a false appearance that the debt relief services are being performed by an attorney solely incidental to his practice of law. LHDR has no capacity to perform those debt relief services. Pursuant to Defendants unified business scheme and agreement, JEM steps into the same shoes for the purpose of performing whatever consumer-related activities may became necessary to maintain consumers participation in the subject debt relief program or carry out activities under that debt relief program. 1. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution LHDR holds itself out to consumers as a nationwide law firm. LHDR, in fact, is principally in the business of associating itself with debt relief programs marketed by numerous for-profit debt relief companies and/or debt relief lead generators, including the debt relief programs. In essence, LHDR lends its name to the debt relief activities of such companies for the purpose of creating a false pretense that the debt relief activities are being performed by an attorney solely incidental to that attorneys practice of law, thereby ostensibly exempting the debt relief programs from state and federal consumer protections, including prohibitions against predatory fees, such as those contained in RCW 18.28.080. In accordance with Marshall Banks standardized business practice, Marshall Banks instructed clientsSmith to execute all transmitted documents where had placed an X and to return those documents. In furtherance of Defendants scheme, standardized enrollment packet contained an Attorney Retainer Agreement with Legal Helpers Debt Resolution LLC, also known as the law firm of Macey, Aleman, Hyslip & Searns. inclusion of the subject Attorney Retainer Agreement in its standardized enrollment packet is not the consequence of a consumer having requested an attorney, having requested legal services, or having had contact with LHDR. standardized business practice violates RCW 18.28.130 by assuming the authority to secure and arrange the terms of compensation for an attorney Marketing and solicitation materials directed at Washington residents did not disclose and do not disclose that the solicitations are on behalf of a law firm. unlawfully engaged in the solicitation of clients for the law firm of LHDR. The inclusion of the Attorney Retainer Agreement in standardized enrollment packet was part of and in furtherance of Defendants conspiratorial enterprise to evade applicable consumer protections through false pretense that the debt relief services are being performed by an attorney, so as to exempt the debt relief services from fee limitations and other consumer protections. LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement, as included in enrollment packet, is a contract involving managing, counseling, settling, prorating, or liquidating of the indebtedness of a debtor and involving a designated third-parties receipt of the debtors funds for the purpose of distributing said funds among creditors in partial payment of obligations of that debtor Executed and returned to documents, as directed , including the Attorney Retainer Agreement. Co-defendants were aware that business practices directed at Washington residents were unfair, deceptive, criminal, and/or
otherwise unlawful. LHDR gave substantial assistance and encouragement in conducting unfair, deceptive, criminal, and otherwise unlawful business activities directed at residents by, among other things, engaging in and agreeing to engage in Attorney Retainer
Agreements with customers; assuming and agreeing to assume the debt relief obligations provided for in void Debt Settlement Agreement; lending its name as a law firm to Banks business activities; and by otherwise agreeing to carry out the common business scheme described in this Complaint. At the time that sent its standardized enrollment packets to members, LHDR had no intention of performing the debt relief services involved in carrying out the subject debt relief program. At the time that sent its standardized enrollment packets to members, LHDR had no capacity to perform the debt relief services involved in carrying out the subject debt relief program. In furtherance of Defendants agreement and common business scheme, LHDR lent its name to the for-profit debt relief activities of , and similarly does so for numerous other debt relief companies engaged in marketing to residents substantially identical illegal debt relief programs. LHDRs activities in respect of debt relief programs, including those performed in respect of debt relief programs of debt relief companies are not performed solely incidental to the practice of law. LHDRs activities in respect debt relief programs, including those performed in respect of debt relief companies, are not performed by an attorney licensed to practice law. To maintain the illusion that the subject debt relief programs are legal services being performed by an LHDR attorney, LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement recites purported legal services to be performed by LHDR. The services recited in LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement are a false pretense, recited for purposes of creating an illusion that the
debt relief services constitute the practice of law or are being performed solely incidental to the practice of law. Recited legal services are either not performed, not performed by an attorney authorized to practice law , or performed solely
incidental to the debt relief program contracted for by consumers. LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement recites that it is a contract for legal services with LHDR LLC, and that it does not constitute a contract with any individual, partner, member, or employee ofLHDR. With respect to residents, the Attorney Retainer Agreement for legal services did not constitute the retention of an attorney licensed to practice law in all the states. LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement provided for an initial fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00), a maintenance fee of forty-nine dollars ($49.00), and fees of fifteen percent (15%) of the clients total scheduled debt for services to be performed . LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement impermissibly provided for an initial fee exceeding twenty-five dollars ($25.00). LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement impermissibly provided for total fees exceeding fifteen percent (15%) of the consumers total listed debt. LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement impermissibly provided for fees exceeding fifteen percent (15%) of anyone payment made by the consumer. LHDR owed a fiduciary duty to residents who executed LHDRs Attorney Retainer Agreement. LHDR breached its duty to Class members, by failing to alert them that they had been victimized by unfair, deceptive, and criminal business activities. LHDR breached its duty to Class members, by failing to alert them that the fees being charged under contracts with LHDR were illegal. LHDR breached its duty to Class members, by failing to alert them that their Debt Settlement Agreement with LHDR were void ab initio and that they were entitled to the return of all money paid. LHDR did not advise Class members, that LHDR had a conflict of interest, including a conflict resulting from its business relationships and agreements with for-profit debt relief companies, including Marshall Banks and JEM. among other things, a back-end for-profit debt relief company. among other things, is in the business of establishing and promoting debt relief programs marketed by debt relief affiliates who hold themselves out to the public as experienced debt
relief companies, but whose actual business is generation of customers for JEM. JEM assumes responsibility for substantially all activities necessitated by consumers having engaged in the debt relief programs of such front-end debt relief affili in this regard, performs substantially all of the activities necessitated by consumers having contracted with LHDR through execution of its standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement or having contracted with JEMs front-end debt relief affiliates,
Marshall Banks standardized Debt Settlement Agreement and LHDRs standardized Attorney Retainer Agreement, directly or indirectly, were contracts for the engagement in respect of managing, counseling, settling, prorating, or liquidating of the indebtedness of a debtor and/or involving receiving funds for the purpose of distributing said funds among creditors in partial payment of obligations of a debtor. For purposes of maintaining a fiction that debt relief activities were only activities of an attorney, performs its activities under a false pretense that they were done under the direct supervision and control of an attorney at LHDR. Based on information and belief, attorneys at LHDR do not control the method, manner, or means by which performs debt relief activities for residents or otherwise directly supervise or control those activities. Based on information and belief, debt relief activities with respect to residents are not performed under the direct supervision or control of an attorney authorized to practice law i. LHDR in conducting unfair, deceptive, criminal, and otherwise unlawful business activities, including the unauthorized practice of law and violation of fiduciary duty by, among other things, agreeing to serve as the back-end debt settlement company that established, managed, and maintained the debt settlement programs marketed and contracted for by LHDR and front-end debt settlement companies, with whom LHDR associates itself, by assuming and agreeing to assume the debt relief obligations of LHDR and; by assuming and agreeing to assume the debt relief duties under void and criminally illegal contracts; and by otherwise agreeing to carry out the common business scheme described in this Complaint. LHDR contracts out virtually all debt relief services to a third party operated and staffed by non-lawyers. State does not give LHDR a pass on fees and states they violate the Illinois Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act. LHDR lures consumers through multiple marketing methods and claims its services, via a law firm, are superior to other debt settlement services. LHDR makes numerous claims that a law firm will be handling consumers debt resolution but that is not true. Mailers for the U.S. National Debt Relief Plan led consumers to LHDR. The State of Illinois, one of many class action law suites, is asking for the following in the suit: A penalty of $10,000 per violation of the Consumer Fraud Act for people 65 or older. A civil penalty of $50,000 per violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. An additional $10,000 per violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act for people 65 or older. LHDR to pay for all costs of investigation and prosecution. Permanently enjoining LHDR from engaging in deceptive and unfair practices. Declaring all contracts entered into between the defendant and Illinois consumers by the use of methods and practices
declared unlawful and rescinded and requiring full restitution by made.

Track this Report 0 Comment | Post a Comment