NY Times | Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures

Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures

With judges looking ever more critically at home foreclosures, they are reaching beyond the bankers to heap some of their most scorching criticism on the lawyers.

In numerous opinions, judges have accused lawyers of processing shoddy or even fabricated paperwork in foreclosure actions when representing the banks.

Judge Arthur M. Schack of New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn has taken aim at an upstate lawyer, Steven J. Baum, referring to one filing as “incredible, outrageous, ludicrous and disingenuous.”

But New York judges are also trying to take the lead in fixing the mortgage mess by leaning on the lawyers. In November, a judge ordered Mr. Baum’s firm to pay nearly $20,000 in fines and costs related to papers that he said contained numerous “falsities.” The judge, Scott Fairgrieve of Nassau County District Court, wrote that “swearing to false statements reflects poorly on the profession as a whole.”

Check out the rest here…

~

4closureFraud.org

Comments
One Response to “NY Times | Judges Berate Bank Lawyers in Foreclosures”
  1. LVLawman says:

    The adversarial legal system of English common law is predicated on the premise that testimony under oath it truthful. When that doesn’t hold, we wind up with perversions of justice, i.e.; wrong outcomes in civil litigation, false convictions in criminal courts, and, yes, executions of innocents.

    It is important that we impose severe sanctions for perjury and misrepresentations to the Courts by it’s officers. This should regularly include severe fines, disbarment and imprisonment. Without severe sanctions for this outrageous conduct by prosecutors, police officers and attorney’s we may as well seek justice in the third world countries legal systems that we denegrate.

    Some years ago I had a Miami attorney blatantly answer sworn interrogatories directed to him falsy regarding dates he was in contact with his client after being compelled by the court to answer. At a further hearing the court demanded he produce his billing records for in-camera review and it was determined he flat out lied. The judge handed over the information to me, redacted as to priviledged content, in open court. No personal penalty imposed on the partner or his associate, fees and costs of hearing denied. Only penalty on our client for legal fees to get what he was entitled to. Happens every day. Priceless!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *