mr Anonymous [Signature #177]</h1> <article> <h1>mr Anonymous [Signature #177]</h1> <p>Thu, 12 May 2011 10:59:29 UTC</p> Anonymous, los angeles, ca </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Ernest Auger [Signature #176]</h1> <p>Wed, 21 Oct 2009 04:57:30 UTC</p> Mr. Ernest Auger, Brentwood, CA<p>This is outrageous.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mrs Marita Nogueiras [Signature #175]</h1> <p>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 03:21:19 UTC</p> Mrs Marita Nogueiras, Downey, CA<p>SB 94 is absurd! I help mostly hispanic clients who come to me after being ripped off by brokers/realtors, etc. Now where will they go? I certainly cannot take on cases without a retainer. I would go out of business. These modifications take months! It would be the equivalent to telling a client in any legal action "Look don't pay me if I don't win the case". How many of us could afford that.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Tony Forberg [Signature #174]</h1> <p>Sat, 17 Oct 2009 12:04:32 UTC</p> Mr. Tony Forberg, Glendale, CA<p>Consumers are entitled to fair and competent legal representation, and attorneys are entitled to compensation for their services. Consumers wil no longer be aboe to retain legal counsel because most attorneys will no longer be willing to represent distressed homeowners if they can't expect compensation for their services.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Ms. Tawni Takagi [Signature #173]</h1> <p>Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:13:09 UTC</p> Ms. Tawni Takagi, Tarzana, California </article> <article> <h1>Sean Salmon [Signature #172]</h1> <p>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:37:07 UTC</p> Sean Salmon, Encinitas, CA </article> <article> <h1>Zacky Rozio [Signature #171]</h1> <p>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:50:38 UTC</p> Zacky Rozio, Beverly Hills, CA<p>I am flabergasted by the Bar's support of this legislation. It is so plainly little more than the banking industries effort to hobble borrowers.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Edward Lear [Signature #170]</h1> <p>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:58:37 UTC</p> Mr. Edward Lear, Los Angeles, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Jeffrey Cancilla [Signature #169]</h1> <p>Sun, 11 Oct 2009 02:48:57 UTC</p> Mr. Jeffrey Cancilla, Huntington Beach, CA<p>Either bill will cause more harm than good. A considered approach to the foreclosure crisis is needed.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Chance E. Gordon [Signature #168]</h1> <p>Sat, 10 Oct 2009 12:14:24 UTC</p> Chance E. Gordon, Los Angeles, California<p>My office is in the process of forming a non-profit organization which will be known as "California Coalition of Homeowner Advocates". It is open to all California Attorneys who wish to stand up against those who have undertaken this political witch hunt. For more information feel free to contact me at cgordon@thegordonlawfirm.com. Listen to my radio show on Saturday, Oct 10th at 1:30 p.m. on 670 a.m. wherein I will discuss this legislation and the greedy politicians that seek to gain from it.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mike Dismukes [Signature #167]</h1> <p>Fri, 9 Oct 2009 05:33:27 UTC</p> Mike Dismukes, Sacramento, CA </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #166]</h1> <p>Fri, 9 Oct 2009 02:35:00 UTC</p> Anonymous, Ladera Ranch, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Nick Brovko [Signature #165]</h1> <p>Wed, 7 Oct 2009 07:16:20 UTC</p> Mr. Nick Brovko, Rosemead, California<p>Allow attorneys to deposit into an Attorney/Client trust acct. and partially withdraw upon completion of milestones. Return funds to client if forensics show that client will not qualify for Loan Modif.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr John Ribarich [Signature #164]</h1> <p>Wed, 7 Oct 2009 03:14:14 UTC</p> Mr John Ribarich, Los Angeles, CA </article> <article> <h1>Ms. Anonymous [Signature #163]</h1> <p>Wed, 7 Oct 2009 02:29:14 UTC</p> Anonymous, Roseville, CA </article> <article> <h1>Kent VanDerSchuit [Signature #162]</h1> <p>Wed, 7 Oct 2009 12:08:41 UTC</p> Kent VanDerSchuit, Carlsbad, CA<p>This legislation is irresponsible, leaving those who need help negotiating loan modifications without representation. Banks are still not doing loan modifications in the numbers promised and regularly refuse to work with homeowners. Eliminating the right to retain an attorney to assist with this extremely important matter (saving ones home) is not only contrary to the homeowners interests, but hurts our Country's attempted economic recovery. This will dramaticly escalate foreclosures in CA.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #161]</h1> <p>Wed, 7 Oct 2009 11:59:14 UTC</p> Anonymous, Torrance, CA </article> <article> <h1>STEPHEN COLBY [Signature #160]</h1> <p>Tue, 6 Oct 2009 11:28:33 UTC</p> STEPHEN COLBY, Newport Beach, CA </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #159]</h1> <p>Mon, 5 Oct 2009 11:36:32 UTC</p> Anonymous, Rancho Cucamonga, CA<p>In an effort to help homeowners, I had in the past agreed to accept payments toward my fees to only have the homeowners file bankruptcy after securing loan modifications - I can assure you that this will be the case with these services if SB94 passes. I have taken great pleasure in helping people in reaching financial stablility in their homeownership - a feeling I have been unable to experience in any other area of practice - I certainly hope it is not taken away.</p> </article> <article> <h1>. Mr. Mark Pittman [Signature #158]</h1> <p>Sun, 4 Oct 2009 01:46:57 UTC</p> . Mr. Mark Pittman, Los Angeles, CA<p>What is next? No advance fees for bk attorneys? Tax relief attorneys? Debt negotiation attorneys?</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr Chris Johnson [Signature #157]</h1> <p>Fri, 2 Oct 2009 09:31:36 UTC</p> Mr Chris Johnson, Irvine, CA<p>The banks are the scam artists here: now they are teaming up with the government and getting this SB94 passed.<br /> We have numerous examples (4 every day) of cases where the lenders are misleading the home owners and taking advantage of them</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Chad Gordon [Signature #156]</h1> <p>Fri, 2 Oct 2009 08:16:54 UTC</p> Mr. Chad Gordon, Huntington Beach, CA </article> <article> <h1>Joseph Rosenblit [Signature #155]</h1> <p>Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:40:47 UTC</p> Joseph Rosenblit, San Juan Capistrano, Ca, Orange County </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Mathew Higbee [Signature #154]</h1> <p>Fri, 2 Oct 2009 05:01:02 UTC</p> Mr. Mathew Higbee, Costa Mesa, CA<p>Punish corrupt attorneys and individuals, not honest attorneys. This lousy bill is almost as poorly conceived as the CA Bar leadership is useless.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr Eric Vandermey [Signature #153]</h1> <p>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:21:32 UTC</p> Mr Eric Vandermey, Fairfield, CA<p>Why would the government deprive any citizen of their Constitutional right to legal representation. The banks are utilizing their legal professionals, so why must the homoeowners be deprived of the same legal right?</p> </article> <article> <h1>Dr. Dean Newcombe [Signature #152]</h1> <p>Mon, 28 Sep 2009 06:48:55 UTC</p> Dr. Dean Newcombe, San Clemente, Ca.<p>I don't expect an attorney to work for free. I have no problem giving my attorney a retainer, like any other attorney would ask for in a different senario.</p> </article> <article> <h1>screwed californian nader [Signature #151]</h1> <p>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:51:01 UTC</p> screwed californian nader, santa ana, ca<p>WE CAN STOP ALL THE CROOKED LAWYERS NOW! ANYONE WHO SIGNED THIS IS THE THIEF! BOO HOO! WHAT A BUNCH OF WIMPS! OH NO WE CANT STEAL FROM CLIENTS ANY MORE! ALL LAWYERS ARE CROOKS! WHY DID MOST OF YOU SIGN THIS ANONYMOUSLY? CHICKEN SHITS MOTHERFUCKERS!</p> </article> <article> <h1>larry jones [Signature #150]</h1> <p>Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:42:05 UTC</p> larry jones, santa ana, ca<p>We ALL know who the crooked lawyers are, and this bill SHOULD pass as we all know we are the biggest thieves in the world. We screw people on a daily basis and we always will.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mrs Mary Gregory [Signature #149]</h1> <p>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:05:37 UTC</p> Mrs Mary Gregory, Long Beach, CA<p>We own a compliance software for the distressed market called Khafre. We believe that if you allow law firms the opportunity to track their efforts with a decided format, which encompasses rights for review by the overseeing bodies, you'll quickly recognize their efforts in helping homeowners and also develop understanding for their important role in the process.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Dean Schroeter [Signature #148]</h1> <p>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 12:35:10 UTC</p> Mr. Dean Schroeter, Santa Ana, California<p>If the bar is going to support such a bill, my tendency is to withhold my bar dues next year since "The Bar" is NOT supporting its members.</p> <p>This has always been the same. When a "client" complains to the bar, the attorney is "guilty until he/she proves their innocence. What a great organization for our forced membership!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Eric Parkin [Signature #147]</h1> <p>Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:39:39 UTC</p> Mr. Eric Parkin, Fullerton, Caifornia </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Adam Attanasio [Signature #146]</h1> <p>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 05:49:41 UTC</p> Mr. Adam Attanasio, Long Beach, CA </article> <article> <h1>Timothy Bryson [Signature #145]</h1> <p>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 01:19:32 UTC</p> Timothy Bryson, La Mesa, CA<p>The bank lobby has bought our governments from top to bottom. This bill only protects the banks not the consumer.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Neil Ison [Signature #144]</h1> <p>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:56:35 UTC</p> Neil Ison, San Jose, CA </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #143]</h1> <p>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 02:30:12 UTC</p> Anonymous, Newport Beach, CA </article> <article> <h1>mr manuel andrade [Signature #142]</h1> <p>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:09:29 UTC</p> mr manuel andrade, rancho cucamonga, ca </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Anonymous [Signature #141]</h1> <p>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:02:33 UTC</p> Anonymous, Corona, CA </article> <article> <h1>Attorney Victor Hobbs [Signature #140]</h1> <p>Mon, 21 Sep 2009 04:24:55 UTC</p> Attorney Victor Hobbs, Irvine, California<p>Web Site name is Hobbs Legal Solutions<br /> There are numerous legal remedies to punish recalcitrant attorneys, who take a fee, and do no work. However, the lawyers and private parties attempting to do loan modifications are only half the business. The other half of the business are the under staffed lenders.<br /> And we can't go any faster than the lenders permit us. Not every attempt to do a loan modification is successful. The home owners are often un- or under-employed</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Anonymous [Signature #139]</h1> <p>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 06:56:33 UTC</p> Anonymous, San diego, Ca </article> <article> <h1>Mr Scott Richards [Signature #138]</h1> <p>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:59:04 UTC</p> Mr Scott Richards, Santa Ana, CA<p>To often the blame is placed on lawyers that are actually trying to help borrowers. Although I agree that there are bad loan mod companies, there are some very good ones as well. The message that this sends is "do not trust any lawyer". How about" The banks, investors, etc. that own your loans are not willing to help you". This leaves ALL the power and leverage to the lenders who have proven nothing to us thus far except that they will only help 9% of the people who QUALIFY for a loan mod.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Jeff Spellerberg [Signature #137]</h1> <p>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 03:20:49 UTC</p> Mr. Jeff Spellerberg, Beverly Hills, California<p>If SB 94 passes, homeowners will be forced to negotiate directly with banks without any representation from attorneys, and will be stripped of their rights to know if they have been victims of lender fraud, TILA violations, RESPA violations, and other illegal acts fraudulently committed by mortgage broker and lenders - every case I have handled, the borrowers were victims of fraud. I can think of no better way to increase foreclosures and let the banks get away with murder, than to pass SB94.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Leland Moglen [Signature #136]</h1> <p>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 02:30:47 UTC</p> Mr. Leland Moglen, Sacramento, CA </article> <article> <h1>MR. Johnathon Hewko [Signature #135]</h1> <p>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 02:50:47 UTC</p> MR. Johnathon Hewko, Newport Beach, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Sam Tabibian [Signature #134]</h1> <p>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 06:03:58 UTC</p> Mr. Sam Tabibian, Los Angeles, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Joshua Fine [Signature #133]</h1> <p>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:55:45 UTC</p> Mr. Joshua Fine, Beverly Hills, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Omer Baron [Signature #132]</h1> <p>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 05:10:06 UTC</p> Mr. Omer Baron, Beverly Hills, CA </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #131]</h1> <p>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 03:36:46 UTC</p> Anonymous, Encino, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr Luis Castillo [Signature #130]</h1> <p>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 12:10:30 UTC</p> Mr Luis Castillo, Cypress, Ca<p>Stop the madness</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Romel Ambarchyan [Signature #129]</h1> <p>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:21:48 UTC</p> Mr. Romel Ambarchyan, Glendale, California </article> <article> <h1>John Sargetis [Signature #128]</h1> <p>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 07:31:50 UTC</p> John Sargetis, Roseville, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mrs. Linda Mathes [Signature #127]</h1> <p>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 04:31:41 UTC</p> Mrs. Linda Mathes, El Dorado Hills, CA<p>This bill needs to be stopped if we care anything at all about the people we represent.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr Timothy Fong [Signature #126]</h1> <p>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 03:25:08 UTC</p> Mr Timothy Fong, Santa Clara, CA </article> <article> <h1>ms PATRICE THOMPSON [Signature #125]</h1> <p>Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:55:56 UTC</p> ms PATRICE THOMPSON, IRVINE, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mrs. Wicked Bitch [Signature #124]</h1> <p>Sun, 13 Sep 2009 03:17:53 UTC</p> Mrs. Wicked Bitch, Carmel by the Sea, CA<p>I don't know. I don't really think. This article is from an apparent authority figure. It must be right.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Michael Lapin [Signature #123]</h1> <p>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 10:44:17 UTC</p> Michael Lapin, Newport Beach, California </article> <article> <h1>Shelley Miller [Signature #122]</h1> <p>Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:43:05 UTC</p> Shelley Miller, Irvine, CA<p>If done RIGHT, loan mods are NOT the easy money some attorneys think they are. Our firm has handled dozens of loan mods as part of an overall financial strategy for clients finding themselves in untenable situations (many followed by bankruptcy); they can drag on so long you may end up making $20 an hour at the end of the day! I'm horrified by attorneys who have essentially pimped their law licenses by associating with loan mod companies and never see any clients - they should be disciplined.</p> </article> <article> <h1>ms. renay rodriguez [Signature #121]</h1> <p>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:52:19 UTC</p> ms. renay rodriguez, chatsworth, ca<p>It is ridiculous that banks will be the ultimate arbitor of whether an attorney gets paid by their decision to give a loan modification or not. Worse yet, unlike contingency fee agreements there is return on a completed loan mod that would compensate the attorney for all of the applications they will file and not get paid for because the loan modification was not completed. This is utter crap.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Victor Palacios [Signature #120]</h1> <p>Fri, 11 Sep 2009 11:57:09 UTC</p> Victor Palacios, Thousand Oaks, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Samuel Bellicini [Signature #119]</h1> <p>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 04:29:05 UTC</p> Mr. Samuel Bellicini, Walnut Creek, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Stephen Stern [Signature #118]</h1> <p>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:28:37 UTC</p> Mr. Stephen Stern, San Luis Obispo, CA </article> <article> <h1>mr dean chandler [Signature #117]</h1> <p>Wed, 9 Sep 2009 11:27:42 UTC</p> mr dean chandler, san marcos, california </article> <article> <h1>Ms. Joan Gray [Signature #116]</h1> <p>Wed, 9 Sep 2009 06:33:19 UTC</p> Ms. Joan Gray, Orange, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr Deborah Bronner [Signature #115]</h1> <p>Wed, 9 Sep 2009 05:19:48 UTC</p> Mr Deborah Bronner, Los Angeles, CA </article> <article> <h1>Ms Monica Centeno [Signature #114]</h1> <p>Wed, 9 Sep 2009 12:37:41 UTC</p> Ms Monica Centeno, Las Vegas, NV<p>I work full time in loan modification and have 7 years of mortgage experience. It is my opinion and experience that servicers who would rather have a loan off their books to achieve a stronger "bottom line" are unwilling to assist homeowners as they have no consequences in foreclosure as they are not the owners of the mortgages. I believe this to be the biggest hindrance to effective relief for clients and efforts are better spent dealing with servicers than attorneys who want to help clients.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Christopher Blood [Signature #113]</h1> <p>Wed, 9 Sep 2009 09:34:12 UTC</p> Christopher Blood, San Diego, CA<p>These bills will leave many homeowners without representation. If consumers need protection from attorneys then the State Bar should be using the considerable dues that I pay annually to enforce existing consumer protection regulations rather than depriving them of my services with SB 94.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #112]</h1> <p>Tue, 8 Sep 2009 10:31:33 UTC</p> Anonymous, San Francisco, CA<p>Dont penalize all lawyers! Some lawyers are doing a great job with very little pay.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Theodore Greene [Signature #111]</h1> <p>Tue, 8 Sep 2009 03:53:00 UTC</p> Theodore Greene, Sacramento, CA </article> <article> <h1>James Powell [Signature #110]</h1> <p>Tue, 8 Sep 2009 01:25:39 UTC</p> James Powell, Riverside, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Hung Nguyen [Signature #109]</h1> <p>Tue, 8 Sep 2009 12:24:37 UTC</p> Mr. Hung Nguyen, San Jose, CA </article> <article> <h1>Rodney Hatley [Signature #108]</h1> <p>Mon, 7 Sep 2009 04:20:11 UTC</p> Rodney Hatley, Carlsbad, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Anonymous [Signature #107]</h1> <p>Mon, 7 Sep 2009 03:33:33 UTC</p> Anonymous, Carlsbad, CA<p>Prohibiting legal assistance to distressed homeowners who need help negotiating reasonable loan modifications would be unconscionable. This proposed law is contrary to logical solutions aimed at solving the housing crisis that was created by lenders. These lenders prospered from selling loan products that created false values that most of these poor homeowners were not qualified for in the first place. Don't let the lending lobbyists compromise the interests of justice and harm our citizens.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Lawrence Fieselman [Signature #106]</h1> <p>Fri, 4 Sep 2009 12:30:56 UTC</p> Mr. Lawrence Fieselman, San Diego, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Scott Wu [Signature #105]</h1> <p>Fri, 4 Sep 2009 11:31:38 UTC</p> Mr. Scott Wu, South Pasadena, CA </article> <article> <h1>Daniel Preddy [Signature #104]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:58:22 UTC</p> Daniel Preddy, Fremont, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr James Nguyen [Signature #103]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:53:23 UTC</p> Mr James Nguyen, Huntington Beach, California<p>Without attorneys borrowers would have no chance against lender tactics. Without advanced fees, there will be no lawyers for borrowers.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Joseph Huprich [Signature #102]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:25:35 UTC</p> Mr. Joseph Huprich, Pasadena, CA<p>This will result in a catastrophic increase in servicer abuse and higher foreclosures that could be prevented. This is completely detrimental to a client's ability to legal representation.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Tom Ratanavaraha [Signature #101]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 08:07:57 UTC</p> Tom Ratanavaraha, Pasadena, CA </article> <article> <h1>JAMES HUFFMAN [Signature #100]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 05:53:48 UTC</p> JAMES HUFFMAN, IRVINE, CA<p>HOMEOWNERS SHOULD NOT BE PROHIBITED FROM OBTAINING THE SERVICES OF AN ATTORNEY TO ASSIST THEM IN SAVING THEIR HOMES FROM FORECLOSURE. THIS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN TODAY'S ECONOMY</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr Philip Minter [Signature #99]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 05:45:51 UTC</p> Mr Philip Minter, Santa Rosa, CA<p>This proposed statute looks like it is bought and paid for. What in the world is the client supposed to do when he brings in his loan documents and the Lawyer reviews them and advises that there are definite TILA violations which almost certainly require litigation but that arguably the lawyer can't take the case on an hourly basis because of the statute and can't afford a contingency basis. Federal Rights and remedies effectively prevented by State Law. Are Civil Rights next?</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Mark Zanides [Signature #98]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 02:58:35 UTC</p> Mr. Mark Zanides, Santa Ana, C A<p>The State Bar's apparent assumption that homeowners do not need legal assistance is gravely mistaken.</p> <p>It is true that there are attorneys who have misused their positions and violated the Bar Rules in various manners in connection with loan modifications. This misconduct is serious, and discipline should be vigorous.</p> <p>But first and foremost our role as lawyers is to help clients in times of need. These are such times. This legislation would effectively prevent us serving our clients.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Reuben Nocos [Signature #97]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 02:35:38 UTC</p> Mr. Reuben Nocos, San Mateo, CA </article> <article> <h1>Vernon Ellicott [Signature #96]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:57:12 UTC</p> Vernon Ellicott, Thousand Oaks, CA<p>This law will do more to harm clients and send them to unscrupuolous scam artists than it will do to protect innocent people in need of help. Lenders do not want attorneys involved because attorneys stand up for people in need and lenders are not out to help people who can't pay mortgages. Lenders are out to save money, not help people. Attorneys are some people's last line of defense. Don't take that away.</p> </article> <article> <h1>mr Anonymous [Signature #95]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:52:50 UTC</p> Anonymous, Irvine,, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Stephen Losh [Signature #94]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:22:32 UTC</p> Mr. Stephen Losh, Beverly Hills, CA. </article> <article> <h1>Joseph Roberts [Signature #93]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 12:11:53 UTC</p> Joseph Roberts, Newport Beach, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mrs. Mary Gubatina [Signature #92]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:40:02 UTC</p> Mrs. Mary Gubatina, Union City, CA<p>Who will legitimately service the Filipino American community. They will be targeted by frauds if there are no attorneys to help them.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Ms. Kelly Robinson [Signature #91]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 11:39:29 UTC</p> Ms. Kelly Robinson, Oakland, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Giovanni Orantes [Signature #90]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:37:20 UTC</p> Mr. Giovanni Orantes, Los Angeles, CA<p>I find that few clients can pay attorneys a reasonable rate to get proper representation to modify their home loans because of the incredible amount of time it requires because of the banks' recalcitrance and sharp practices. However, attorneys who have made their practice efficient enough to make the endeavor profitabe should be allowed to be compensated appropriately. The alternative is to leave people in the hands of unscrupulous foreclosure consultants and real estate industry operators.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #89]</h1> <p>Thu, 3 Sep 2009 01:22:06 UTC</p> Anonymous, Thosuand Oaks, CA<p>I do not handle Loan Modifications, but any legislation that restricts an attorney from obtaining a retainer up front for lawful services has a chilling impact on our profession. The State Bar should be fighting to ensure our ability to make a living, not supporting efforts to curtail our livlihood!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #88]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 08:26:07 UTC</p> Anonymous, Los Angeles, CA </article> <article> <h1>Anonymous [Signature #87]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 07:04:59 UTC</p> Anonymous, Tustin, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Julias Stewart [Signature #86]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 05:15:32 UTC</p> Mr. Julias Stewart, Chatsworth, CA<p>Client's need help, but they don't pay once work is done.</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Anonymous [Signature #85]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 05:07:56 UTC</p> Anonymous, Tustin, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. James Donovan [Signature #84]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 04:27:32 UTC</p> Mr. James Donovan, Central Islip, New York<p>Immediately after we stop allowing attorneys to sign retainers to defend persons against against moving parties we must immediately stop accountants from charging folks to help prepare tax returns or defend them from the IRS. Some democracy, huh!</p> </article> <article> <h1>Robert Boyajian [Signature #83]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 04:12:21 UTC</p> Robert Boyajian, Santa Ana, Ca </article> <article> <h1>Mr Jon Dieringer [Signature #82]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 04:07:16 UTC</p> Mr Jon Dieringer, Tustin, CA<p>So, this bill would deter clients and attorneys from entering into agreements when the attorney wishes to be paid a retainer for his services before commencing work? Would it deter attorneys from taking cases to advocate for clients against the unlimited resources of lenders?</p> </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Arash Shirdel [Signature #81]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 03:49:49 UTC</p> Mr. Arash Shirdel, newport beach, ca<p>I am an attorney that deals directly with lenders on behalf of homeowners to get their mortgages modified. Most of the clients that I represent have attempted to get a modification on their own and have been unsuccessful. These clients come to me for help and I do help them. If I cannot charge retainer fees in doing loan modifications, I would cease to do them. As a result my clients would now be homeless. This is an outrage to me as an honest attorney in the industry to think that the ser</p> </article> <article> <h1>Adam Gerard [Signature #80]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 03:14:52 UTC</p> Adam Gerard, Irvine, CA </article> <article> <h1>Timothy Grant [Signature #79]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 01:55:34 UTC</p> Timothy Grant, San Diego, CA </article> <article> <h1>Mr. Keefe Roberts [Signature #78]</h1> <p>Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:52:25 UTC</p> Mr. Keefe Roberts, Irvine, California<p>The State Bar is sending the wrong message by sponoring this legislation.</p> </article> </main></body></html>