Posts tagged "1005517"

In the Matter of Zak, David (Lawyers Weekly No. 10-055-17)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

NOTICE:  All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports.  If you find a typographical error or other formal error, please notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Judicial Court, John Adams Courthouse, 1 Pemberton Square, Suite 2500, Boston, MA, 02108-1750; (617) 557-1030; SJCReporter@sjc.state.ma.us

SJC-12073

IN THE MATTER OF DAVID ZAK.

April 10, 2017.

Attorney at Law, Disciplinary proceeding, Commingling of funds, Fee-sharing agreement, Advertising, Disbarment.

The respondent attorney, David Zak, appeals from a judgment of a single justice of this court disbarring him from the practice of law.[1]  We affirm.

Background.  Bar counsel filed a seven-count petition for discipline with the Board of Bar Overseers (board) against the respondent arising out of the respondent’s solicitation and handling of a substantial number of mortgage loan modification cases over more than a four-year period.  See note 10, infra.  Count one alleged that the respondent made payments to others to recommend his services and to solicit professional employment for the respondent from prospective clients;[2] shared fees with nonlawyers;[3] failed to instruct and supervise his employees and agents adequately;[4] and engaged in the practice of law with a person who was not a lawyer.[5]  Count two charged that the respondent made false and misleading advertisements about himself, his law firm, and his loan modification services, in Massachusetts and other jurisdictions.[6]  Count three alleged that the respondent charged and collected advance fees for loan modification services, in violation of Federal and State statutes and regulations, and that the fees he charged were either excessive or illegal, or both.[7]  Count four alleged that the respondent provided or caused to be provided to clients false, deceptive or misleading information about his loan modification services.[8]  Counts five, six, and seven alleged misconduct during the respondent’s handling of three specific loan modification matters, and in connection with bar counsel’s investigation of complaints filed by those clients. read more

Read more...

Posted by Massachusetts Legal Resources - April 10, 2017 at 4:40 pm

Categories: News   Tags: , , , ,