Pamela Stacey Gerber-Gressier gets to spend many days in court after being sued by the State Bar of California.
She’s also been associated with The Remedy Group, Remedy Law, Prudent Law, and Prudential Law to name a few. All of these outfits were selling consumers mortgage modification help or saying they could sue mortgage lenders and win big, for an advance fee.
The topic of Pamela was even the subject of Apparent Pamela Gressier – Prudent Law Fan – Not Happy With GetOutOfDebt.org.
As I said then:
What makes this particular episode interesting is that it seems illogical to attack me or this site for the posts submitted by readers and the one post in which I gave advice. When these episodes happen it makes me and others wonder if the strategy is to attack rather than resolve the consumer issues with the company.
Wouldn’t it be a much smarter approach for the attorney and/or company to respond in a positive way to consumer complaints to show how exceptional their customer service can be and that they care about their customers? Surely that would attract more potential new clients.
Attacks like this one against the site make me wonder if there isn’t something more that we don’t know. When you can’t attack the message, attack the messenger I guess.
As I said to the attacking Twitter user:
@jimcaronartist What harassment and false reviews? Can you point to a specific example please.
There has been no response to that message.
Back to the Present
The State Bar of California alleges and states the following in their June 28, 2013 complaint.
Between in or about June 2011 and in or about November 2011, Respondent’s law firm was named Prudential Law Group (“Prudential”).
In or about November 2011, Respondent changed her law firm’s name from Prudential to Prudent Law Group (“Prudent”).
In or about May 2012, Respondent changed her law firm’s name from Prudent to Remedy Center Law Associates (“Remedy”). To date, Respondent continues to operate her law firm under the name Remedy
The Bar then presents 108 counts of charges against her, including:
By engaging in a pattern of: allowing non-attorneys to determine and advise prospective clients whether they qualify for a mortgage loan modification; allowing nonattorneys to determine whether to accept clients on behalf of Respondent; allowing non-attorneys to determine the amount of legal fees to charge clients; holding herself out as entitled to practice law in jurisdictions where she is not entitled to practice law; collecting illegal fees from clients in jurisdictions where she is not licensed to practice law; improperly soliciting clients, and failing to refund unearned fees, Respondent committed acts involving moral turpitude, dishonesty or corruption.
One of the issues in the State Bar case surrounded a mailer I covered in this post. You can see it below.
The Bar count about the mailer says:
“Respondent willfully violated Rule of Professional Conduct, rule 1-400, by delivering, or causing to be delivered, a communication seeking professional employment for pecuniary gain, which was transmitted by mail or equivalent means, which did not bear the word “Advertisement,” “Newsletter,” or words of similar import in 12 point print on the first page, was presented or arranged in a matter or format which tended to confuse, deceive or mislead the public, contained untrue statements, and did not state the name of the member responsible for the communication, as follows:
From in or about 2011 through in or about 2012, Respondent delivered, or caused to be delivered, communications transmitted by mail to Bishop, Herskowitz, Haverly, Danskin, Torres, Amstutz, Dohmen, the Perrys, Soares, Walker, Herrera, Figueroa, the Thomases, Heyen, Graddy, Brandano, Ransom, Wilkins, Achuko, Benson, Choate, Devreaux, Hughart, McFerren, and Daniel, to their respective residences outside of California. The communication was an advertisement mailer seeking to entice these prospective clients to employ Respondent to provide legal services in the form of mortgage loan modification services of their respective home mortgages. The communications did not bear the words “Advertisement,” “Newsletter,” or words of similar import, in 12 point print on the first page.
The mailer was presented or arranged in a format that made it appear as if it was sent by the addressees’ respective mortgage holders~ The front page of the mailer stated, “Payment Reduction Notification” and “IMPORTANT ON FILE INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR LOAN WITH [RESPECTIVE BANK NAME].” The second page states “Payment Reduction Status PENDING REVIEW” and “Modification Program.” It also contains a “Personal ID Number, …. ID Number,” and “Code” number intended to make the mailer appear like a personalized official bank document to and to confuse, deceive, or mislead the recipients.
The mailer stated, “We have reviewed your property information and have determined that you may be eligible to modify the current terms of your mortgage.” There was no legitimate basis for the claim since Respondent had not reviewed the recipients’ respective mortgages. The claim was at the very least misleading, if not, false.
The mailer stated, “This offer is good for 30 days from the above date and is subject to certain conditions. No other notice will be issued and no phone calls will be made to you.” This claim was at the very least misleading, if not, false because there was no legitimate reason to claim that the mailer had an expiration date.
The mailer did not state Respondent’s name, any of her law firm’s names, or Respondent’s address. The mailer did not contain the name of any person or entity responsible for sending the mailer.
By the foregoing conduct, Respondent delivered, or caused to be delivered, a communication seeking professional employment for pecuniary gain, which was transmitted by mail or equivalent means.”
That’s just the State Bar way of saying the mailer was bullshit, which it was.
What Blows My Mind
It just blows my mind that a licensed attorney would ever consider participating in such operations which just appeared to screw over consumers. But it appears they do, time-after-time.
A big sticking point for me is the lack of issuing consumers refund when services were not provided. What’s the point unless it was all a scam to begin with and the point was to separate the consumer from their money.
“To date, Respondent has not refunded any portion of the $3,995 in illegal, unearned, attorney’ s fees that Hughart paid Respondent.
By failing to provide Hughart with a refund of illegal, unearned attorney’s fees, Respondent failed to refund promptly any part of a fee paid in advance that has not been earned.”
No matter what happens now, this isn’t going to end well for anyone.
Always so sad.
You can read the full novel of a lawsuit against PSGG, here.