Main Law PC

Mrs [redacted] contacted us in December when she was already months late, the mortgage statement sent to us also showed the delinquency amount She was never advised to go behind We contacted the lender immediately and started the process with a positive outcome, file was approved for trial modification on 3/10/New payment is $1,with first payment due April 1, Client never paid her retainer balance due to our firm and simply ignored our calls as soon as the lender contacted them with good news Client hasn't answered our calls in a month Client should not have any reasons to file this complaint Our firm will refund Mrs [redacted] $1,and close this case

Client/Borrower retained Main Law, P.C (the "Firm") on March 14,to assist them in obtainingloss mitigation alternatives in connection with their mortgage with their lenderPursuant to theRetainer Agreement (the "Agreement"), services to be provided to client/borrower included analysisof their current financial position and future payment capabilities, lender questionnaire prior to theacceptance ofthe file was completedOther services performed are the submission of a QualifiedWritten Request ("QWR"), comprehensive compilation, review, and analysis of relevant financial iand I lending_documents,_the_submission_of_a modification_package_to_theirJender and a full _________ .investigation of the Homeowners Bill of Rights by and through the responses to the QWR from the ~ilender.All services to be provided to consumers seeking representation of the Firm are clearly andconspicuously disclosed via the Agreement prior to the consumer becoming a client of the Firm1i Moreover, the Agreement clearly states that the Firm cannot guarantee any client a lower mortgagepayment or a modification of their existing loan; rather, clients of the Firm are only promised that theFirm will use its best efforts to perform the agreed upon services as set forth of the retainerTo thatend, the client/borrower was provided the Agreement and ample time to not only review the contentsthereof, but to ask questions necessary to clarify the scope of representation offeredThe Firmprovided the client/borrower with representation in connection with pursuing loss mitigation effortson their behalf; regularly communicating with both client/borrower and their lenderIn addition toreviewing and analyzing the client/borrower financial documentation and assembling the necessarydocumentation to submit a loss mitigation package, the Fjrm submitted and monitored the status of, acomplete loan modification package on behalf of the client/borrowerMain Law PC submitted therequest for assistance to lender on March 25th, and sent requested docutnentation on Aprill'fhOn April 241h, lender re~assigned a new point of contact on their behalfOn April 25th,the loan modification request was deniedThe date of the denial we learned through lender thefile had previously been denied on February 27th, and were informed in detail ofthe denialbeing for a Home Affordable Modification ProgramPer lender the file was re-opened and denied forthe Home Affordable Modification Program in which Main Law PC appealed the decision reachedand asked that the file be reviewed for other alternatives to assist the homeowner avoid foreclosure.Because the escalation the Attorney ofthe firm made through the Executive Offices of lender file hadbeen re-open for a reviewed for the following programs: in-house assistanceand modificationaffordability programsThe processing of this file went on over a month period and involved overhours of processing/paralegal time and 4~hours of attorney timeLender did suggest thatclient/borrower contact Keep Your Home California for assistance to reinstate the mortgage loan.Main Law PC did do research and provided client/borrower with contact information to Keep YourHome California centersIt was our intention to coordinate homeowner's efforts in this area withlenderEven though our work under the retainer was completed per its te~ms wewere willing tocontinue assisting the clientHowever on September 16111,Main Law PC was contacted bylender asking that we please send them a withdraw of representation for the client/borrower becausethe homeowner had requested to have us removedThis action caused us to cease furthernegotiations

client retained Main Law, P.C (the “Firm”) to assist them in obtaining loss mitigation alternatives in connection with their mortgage with their lenderPursuant to the Retainer Agreement (the “Agreement”), services to be provided to client included a detailed analysis of their current financial position and future payment capabilities, phone call via three way was placed to lender with client to complete the lender questionnaire prior to the acceptance of the fileOne of the questions on the lender questionnaire was whether client were eligible for a loan modificationBased on all the information lender had about client and his existing loan the banks representative stated he was eligible for a loan modification “HAMP” or other home retention programsWe felt the bank would know a lot more about client then we did at that time Other services performed are the submission of a Qualified Written Request (“QWR”), comprehensive compilation, review, and analysis of relevant financial and lending documents, the submission of a modification package to their lender and a full investigation of the Homeowners Bill of Rights by and through the responses to the QWR from the lender All services to be provided to consumers seeking representation of the Firm are clearly and conspicuously disclosed verbally and via the Agreement prior to the consumer becoming a client of the FirmAlso included in the Agreement are a detailed description of the fees to be charged for services offered and a listing of events or additional services that would trigger additional fees and/or costs for the client Moreover, the Agreement clearly states that the Firm cannot guarantee any client a lower mortgage payment or a modification of their existing loan; rather, clients of the Firm are only promised that the Firm will use its best efforts to perform the agreed upon services To that end, the client was provided the Agreement and ample time to not only review the contents thereof, but to ask questions necessary to clarify the scope of representation offered We have no record of the client expressing concern or questioning the terms of the Agreement as contemplated The Firm provided client with representation in connection with pursuing loss mitigation efforts on their behalf; regularly communicating with both client and their lenderIn addition to reviewing and analyzing the client financial documentation and assembling the necessary documentation to submit a loss mitigation package, the Firm submitted and monitored the status of, a complete loan modification package on behalf of the clientWe have attempted to contact client to address concerns raisedHowever we have been unable to reach them as the numbers listed are for our firm, and the number of file is no longer a working number

Complaint Number: [redacted] Please be advised we have responded to the Revdex.com complaint number: [redacted] This matter hasbeen resolved with consumer directly.If anything else should be needed, please, do not hesitate to call usWe thank you for your timeand help and this matter.Thank you

We were retained on April 3rd, 2014 to do the following things, file a QWR, perform a hardship interview, perform a financial analysis of client's position and payment capabilities, and do a comprehensive... compilation, review and analysis of client's support information and submission of modification package to lender and investigation of Homeowners Bill of Rights thru review of QWR responses. A few days later we submitted a modification request with the documentation provided by client. Other information was request which we obtained from clients. About 30 after initial submittal the request was denied because of insufficient income. About May 6th the clients were contacted to discuss grounds for appeal, like financial changes. We were advised by client he is receiving GI Benefits, when asked why he had not disclosed that earlier he stated he was not sure whether the benefits would be terminated in the near future. We asked for client's benefit award letter and he stated he would have to obtain one from the government and fax to us upon receipt. On or about May 29th clients faxed the benefits award letter and we resubmitted to OCWEN. On or about June 3rd client informed us his GI benefits had just been terminated, however, there was an increase in income as client's wife was working overtime and that income can more than replace the GI income. Therefore, on or about June 3 we re-submitted the file for a loan modification request to OCWEN based on wife's overtime. On or about June 16th, 2014 the clients were informed the file was in active review w/ OCWEN with the increased income from the wife's overtime. We stayed in touch with OCWEN re status of file and if an update was needed would contact client to obtain said update. On or about July 16th upon placing our weekly call to OCWEN we were informed the loan modification request was denied. The reason being there can be no HAMP because this is a VA loan and the income is still insufficient. It was becoming apparent the investor didn't want to do a modification. Nevertheless we demanded an alternative to foreclosure as there was a sales date scheduled for July 21, 2014. We also requested that the sales date be postponed. They granted a postponement, but only until August 1st, 2014. We continued to attempt to escalate the file but on about July 28, 2014 that was denied based on fact loan was a VA loan and the GI income was no longer being received. However, OCWEN did offer alternatives to foreclosure 1. Reinstatement of account; 2. Short sell. We immediately informed the wife who informed us she had already met with her Realtor and someone they knew was going to purchase the house through their realtor. We stressed to her if she was truly initiating the short sale process, she needed to move quickly as the sales date was scheduled for August 1, 2014 @ 2:00 PM. Client stated she understood and that is why she was meeting with the realtor to proceed w/ the short sale. We stressed to the wife to stress to the Realtor to submit a Short Sale Package now. Her Realtor should request the sales date be postponed. The client's wife stated she knew what needed to take place. On July 29th we contacted OCWEN to inform them client was proceeding with Short Sale and they should postpone the sale to allow time for the review of the Short Sale. OCWEN related that in order to have the sales date postponed the listing of the property and the offer had to be submitted to them ASAP, but no guarantees were made to postpone the sales date. We informed the client's wife that the listing agreement and the offer had to be sent to OCWEN immediately. She should inform her Realtor, if he was not already aware, of this situation. Wife again stated she was aware of this situation, but was working more than usual, making it difficult to meet with her Realtor. Whether the wife (or Realtor) really had a client who would purchase the house for some figure the bank would accept is not known. What is known is that we stressed to the client's wife (she was involved in the short sale) that the foreclosure sales date was still active for August 1, 2014 @ 2:00 PM. On August 1, 2014 we contacted OCWEN to check the status of having the sales date postponed and were informed the Sales date was still active and were proceeding at 2:00 PM. We attempted to contact client with no answer. We left numerous voice mail messages informing client of the sales date taking place. Client contacted us on August 1, 2014 at 1:58 pm to check the status and was informed the sales date was active and numerous attempts to contact client were made. We were then informed the client's husband was unaware the sale date was active. Husband was informed that his wife was very well aware of the sale date and the fact the file was being denied for a modification, which is why they were short selling the home. Client stated he was unaware of what was taking place and would be speaking with his wife about the entire situation. August 1, 2014 was the last communication Main Law PC had with the clients. On or about September 3, 2014 we attempted to contact the clients to inquire whether the correspondence being received on their behalf was to be mailed to the property or forwarded to another address. We were unable to reach the clients and a message was left in their voicemail. The call we made was not returned and therefore withdraw of representation was made on November 25th, 2014. We have talked with the client and resolved our differences.

Please find enclosed the following documentation: 1) Cancellation/Release of Liability [redacted] We had sent Mr [redacted] the enclosed Cancellation/Release of LiabilityWe enclosed a check, and indicated if it was deposited (cashed) it would constitute his acceptance of payment as full resolution of any and all dispute between himself and our firm We are unsure whether Mr [redacted] filed this complaint with the Revdex.com, and then cashed the check, or vice versaWe have attempted to contact Mr [redacted] via phone call for week& to clarify the situation, but have been unsuccessful to date in contacting himIt is our understanding the matter had been resolvedThank you for your time and help in this matter Sincerely, [redacted] , Esq

Revdex.com:
I have ed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I ed appear below
[We are in process of resolving this issue & will update once the situation has been COMPLETED RESOLVED, which is through complete refund for services not rendered]
Regards,*** ***

Pursuant to your suggestion we have recontacted [redacted] and worked out a
settlement wherein we will provide him another check in the sum of $750, which
when cashed will constitute full resolution of any and dispute between himself and
our firm. The check will be mailed out tomorrow, October 3, 2014 which should be
received by Monday or Tuesday of next week.
You have indicated you will confirm this next week. I would suggest waiting until
after he received the check so he can confirm the settlement.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
[redacted]

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me.  I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.
I will withdraw my request once I have been refunded, via certified check, in full by the company. The loan modification was completed by my doing. I am now appealing it with my mortgage provider and am getting it my mortgage payment reduced to a more affordable payment as what they reduced it to (1409.00) is only 53.00 less than the original mortgage payment.
Regards,
[redacted]

Mrs. [redacted] contacted us in December 2013 when she was already 3 months late, the mortgage statement sent to us also showed the
delinquency amount.
She was never advised to
go behind.
We contacted the lender immediately and started the process with a positive outcome, file was approved
for trial...

modification on 3/10/2014 . New payment is $1,409.34 with first payment
due April 1, 2014.
Client never paid her retainer balance due to our firm and simply ignored our calls as soon as the lender contacted them with good news.
Client hasn't answered our calls in a month.
Client should not have any reasons to file this complaint. 
Our firm will refund Mrs [redacted] $1,750.00 and close this case.

Complaint Number: [redacted]Please be advised we have responded to the Revdex.com complaint number: [redacted]. This matter hasbeen resolved with consumer directly.If anything else should be needed, please, do not hesitate to call us. We thank you for your timeand help and this matter.Thank...

you

Please find enclosed the following documentation:
1) Cancellation/Release of Liability
[redacted]
We had sent Mr. [redacted] the enclosed Cancellation/Release of Liability. We enclosed a check, and
indicated if it was deposited (cashed) it would constitute his...

acceptance of payment as full
resolution of any and all dispute between himself and our firm.
We are unsure whether Mr. [redacted] filed this complaint with the Revdex.com, and then cashed the check,
or vice versa. We have attempted to contact Mr. [redacted] via phone call for 2 week& to clarify the
situation, but have been unsuccessful to date in contacting him. It is our understanding the matter
had been resolved. Thank you for your time and help in this matter.
Sincerely,
[redacted], Esq

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
In my response to Mainlaw PC. They have not tried to contact me. Someone is at my home daily. Mainlaw PC has had all my contacts since they falsely advertised when they said that I qualified for a principal reduction program. They contacted and directed me how to deposit my money into a trust account at Bank of America. I find that to be a simple lie on their part. Yes they did send me a check for $1,000.00 and I did not sign the form that they sent. I spoke to I believe was [redacted] or who ever it was on the phone. I that brief conversation he flat out told me he would on refund me $500.00. I then told him that that was absurd! I then went into dialog trying to recoup at a minimum of $2,000.00 of my $3,500.00 that I sent his PC in good faith. My lender said that companies such as his can not tell a consumer that  they qualify for any mortage programs when they are not lenders or brokers. I am a father that has been helping my (2) children through college and I pleaded with [redacted]  to see that his company did not do $2,500,00. Mainlaw PC owes me at a minimum another $1,000.00 as I do understand retainers for attorneys. [redacted] or Mainlaw PC should be fair on this matter. No I am not satisfied and the falsely advertised when there representative [redacted]. told me that I qualified for a program where they are not authorized to tell the consumer so according to my lending institution. So enclosing. I am not satisfied and I want my money back!!!
[redacted]
Cell 707-720-5702
Home 707-421-2703
[redacted]@juno.com
Mainlaw PC has had my contact information before I deposited my money into their trust account at Bank of America and they had my contacts when I was trying to plead with them for a fair refund.
Regards,
[redacted]

Client/Borrower retained Main Law, P.C (the "Firm") on March 14,2014 to assist them in obtainingloss mitigation alternatives in connection with their mortgage with their lender. Pursuant to theRetainer Agreement (the "Agreement"), services to be provided to client/borrower included...

analysisof their current financial position and future payment capabilities, lender questionnaire prior to theacceptance ofthe file was completed. Other services performed are the submission of a QualifiedWritten Request ("QWR"), comprehensive compilation, review, and analysis of relevant financial iand I lending_documents,_the_submission_of_a modification_package_to_theirJender and a full _________ .investigation of the Homeowners Bill of Rights by and through the responses to the QWR from the ~ilender.All services to be provided to consumers seeking representation of the Firm are clearly andconspicuously disclosed via the Agreement prior to the consumer becoming a client of the Firm. 1i Moreover, the Agreement clearly states that the Firm cannot guarantee any client a lower mortgagepayment or a modification of their existing loan; rather, clients of the Firm are only promised that theFirm will use its best efforts to perform the agreed upon services as set forth of the retainer. To thatend, the client/borrower was provided the Agreement and ample time to not only review the contentsthereof, but to ask questions necessary to clarify the scope of representation offered. The Firmprovided the client/borrower with representation in connection with pursuing loss mitigation effortson their behalf; regularly communicating with both client/borrower and their lender. In addition toreviewing and analyzing the client/borrower financial documentation and assembling the necessarydocumentation to submit a loss mitigation package, the Fjrm submitted and monitored the status of, acomplete loan modification package on behalf of the client/borrower. Main Law PC submitted therequest for assistance to lender on March 25th, 2014 and sent requested docutnentation on Aprill'fh.2014. On April 241h, 2014 lender re~assigned a new point of contact on their behalf. On April 25th,2014 the loan modification request was denied. The date of the denial we learned through lender thefile had previously been denied on February 27th, 2014 and were informed in detail ofthe denialbeing for a Home Affordable Modification Program. Per lender the file was re-opened and denied forthe Home Affordable Modification Program in which Main Law PC appealed the decision reachedand asked that the file be reviewed for other alternatives to assist the homeowner avoid foreclosure.Because the escalation the Attorney ofthe firm made through the Executive Offices of lender file hadbeen re-open for a reviewed for the following programs: in-house assistance. and modificationaffordability programs. The processing of this file went on over a 5 month period and involved over30 hours of processing/paralegal time and 4~5 hours of attorney time. Lender did suggest thatclient/borrower contact Keep Your Home California for assistance to reinstate the mortgage loan.Main Law PC did do research and provided client/borrower with contact information to Keep YourHome California centers. It was our intention to coordinate homeowner's efforts in this area withlender. Even though our work under the retainer was completed per its te~ms we. were willing tocontinue assisting the client. However on September 16111,2014 Main Law PC was contacted bylender asking that we please send them a withdraw of representation for the client/borrower becausethe homeowner had requested to have us removed. This action caused us to cease furthernegotiations.

client retained Main Law, P.C (the “Firm”) to assist them in obtaining loss mitigation alternatives in connection
with their mortgage with their lender. Pursuant to the...

Retainer Agreement (the
“Agreement”), services to be provided to client included a detailed
analysis of their current financial position and future payment capabilities, phone
call via three way was placed to lender with client to complete the lender
questionnaire prior to the acceptance of the file. One of the questions on the
lender questionnaire was whether client were eligible for a loan
modification. Based on all the information lender had about client and his existing loan the banks representative stated he was eligible for a
loan modification “HAMP” or other home retention programs. We felt
the bank would know a lot more about client then we did at that time.
Other services performed are the submission of a Qualified Written Request
(“QWR”), comprehensive compilation, review, and analysis of relevant financial
and lending documents, the submission of a modification package to their lender
and a full investigation of the Homeowners Bill of Rights by and through the
responses to the QWR from the lender.
All services to be provided to consumers seeking
representation of the Firm are clearly and conspicuously disclosed verbally and
via the Agreement prior to the consumer becoming a client of the Firm. Also
included in the Agreement are a detailed description of the fees to be charged
for services offered and a listing of events or additional services that would
trigger additional fees and/or costs for the client.  Moreover, the Agreement clearly states that
the Firm cannot guarantee any client a lower mortgage payment or a modification
of their existing loan; rather, clients of the Firm are only promised that the
Firm will use its best efforts to perform the agreed upon services.
To that end, the client was provided the
Agreement and ample time to not only review the contents thereof, but to ask
questions necessary to clarify the scope of representation offered.  We have no record of the client expressing
concern or questioning the terms of the Agreement as contemplated.  
The Firm provided client with
representation in connection with pursuing loss mitigation efforts on their
behalf; regularly communicating with both client and their lender. In addition to reviewing and analyzing the client financial
documentation and assembling the necessary documentation to submit a loss
mitigation package, the Firm submitted and monitored the status of, a complete
loan modification package on behalf of the client.
We have attempted to contact client to address concerns raised. However we have been unable to reach them as the numbers listed are for our firm, and the number of file is no longer a working number.

We were retained on April 3rd, 2014 to do the following things,
file a QWR, perform a hardship interview, perform a financial analysis of
client's position and payment capabilities, and do a comprehensive...

compilation,
review and analysis of client's support information and submission of
modification package to lender and investigation of Homeowners Bill of Rights
thru review of QWR responses. A few days later we submitted a modification
request with the documentation provided by client. Other information was
request which we obtained from clients. About 30 after initial submittal the
request was denied because of insufficient income. 
 
About May 6th the clients were contacted to discuss grounds for
appeal, like financial changes. We were advised by client he is receiving GI
Benefits, when asked why he had not disclosed that earlier he stated he was not
sure whether the benefits would be terminated in the near future. We asked for
client's benefit award letter and he stated he would have to obtain one from
the government and fax to us upon receipt. On or about May 29th clients faxed
the benefits award letter and we resubmitted to OCWEN. On or about June 3rd
client informed us his GI benefits had just been terminated, however, there was
an increase in income as client's wife was working overtime and that income can
more than replace the GI income. Therefore, on or about June 3 we re-submitted
the file for a loan modification request to OCWEN based on wife's overtime.
 
On or about June 16th, 2014 the clients were informed the file was
in active review w/ OCWEN with the increased income from the wife's overtime.
We stayed in touch with OCWEN re status of file and if an update was needed
would contact client to obtain said update. 
 
On or about July 16th upon placing our weekly call to OCWEN we
were informed the loan modification request was denied. The reason being there
can be no HAMP because this is a VA loan and the income is still insufficient.
It was becoming apparent the investor didn't want to do a modification.
Nevertheless we demanded an alternative to foreclosure as there was a sales
date scheduled for July 21, 2014. We also requested that the sales date be
postponed. They granted a postponement, but only until August 1st, 2014. We
continued to attempt to escalate the file but on about July 28, 2014 that was
denied based on fact loan was a VA loan and the GI income was no longer being
received. However, OCWEN did offer alternatives to foreclosure 1. Reinstatement
of account; 2. Short sell. 
 
We immediately informed the wife who informed us she had already
met with her Realtor and someone they knew was going to purchase the house
through their realtor. We stressed to her if she was truly initiating the short
sale process, she needed to move quickly as the sales date was scheduled for
August 1, 2014 @ 2:00 PM. Client stated she understood and that is why she was
meeting with the realtor to proceed w/ the short sale. We stressed to the wife
to stress to the Realtor to submit a Short Sale Package now. Her Realtor should
request the sales date be postponed. The client's wife stated she knew what
needed to take place. 
 
On July 29th we contacted OCWEN to inform them client was
proceeding with Short Sale and they should postpone the sale to allow time for
the review of the Short Sale. OCWEN related that in order to have the sales
date postponed the listing of the property and the offer had to be submitted to
them ASAP, but no guarantees were made to postpone the sales date. We informed
the client's wife that the listing agreement and the offer had to be sent to
OCWEN immediately. She should inform her Realtor, if he was not already aware,
of this situation. Wife again stated she was aware of this situation, but was
working more than usual, making it difficult to meet with her Realtor. Whether
the wife (or Realtor) really had a client who would purchase the house for some
figure the bank would accept is not known. What is known is that we stressed to
the client's wife (she was involved in the short sale) that the foreclosure
sales date was still active for August 1, 2014 @ 2:00 PM. 
 
On August 1, 2014 we contacted OCWEN to check the status of having
the sales date postponed and were informed the Sales date was still active and
were proceeding at 2:00 PM. We attempted to contact client with no answer. We
left numerous voice mail messages informing client of the sales date taking
place. Client contacted us on August 1, 2014 at 1:58 pm to check the status and
was informed the sales date was active and numerous attempts to contact client
were made. We were then informed the client's husband was unaware the sale date
was active. Husband was informed that his wife was very well aware of the sale
date and the fact the file was being denied for a modification, which is why
they were short selling the home. Client stated he was unaware of what was
taking place and would be speaking with his wife about the entire situation.
August 1, 2014 was the last communication Main Law PC had with the
clients. 
 
On or about September 3, 2014 we attempted to contact the clients
to inquire whether the correspondence being received on their behalf was to be
mailed to the property or forwarded to another address. We were unable to reach
the clients and a message was left in their voicemail. The call we made was not
returned and therefore withdraw of representation was made on November 25th,
2014.
 
We have talked with the client and resolved our differences.

Review: We were undergoing financial hardship and unable to make mortgage payments when we received a mail advertisement from Main Law PC regarding Loan Modification. We contacted Main Law PC and were asked to send documentation by email and upon review documents, they would contact us and let us know if we meet the requirements before accepting the role of legal counsel. Spoke to Main Law PC ([redacted]) after providing info re. our situation. Foreclosure sale date would be stopped first, then their attorneys will work with the legal department of WFHM and negotiate with them, combine both first and second mortgage and litigate with WFHM regarding house value, cut down both first & second mortgage balances, reduce default amount & negative escrow balance. They would notify us if they can accept our case. She informed us that their success rate in getting loans modified for their clients was 100%., their flat fee of $3995 and the different payment options based on our income and affordability. We were informed that we met the 4 requirements for Main Law PC to accept our case. We were also told that they take cases only if they are sure that they can get the loan modified and that case would not be a problem at all. Main Law PC (MLPC) accepted our case and it would be 100% successful in modifying the loan. They have reviewed our documents and found us to be eligible for loan modification. We were informed Main Law PC underwriter have spoken to HAMP and sale date will be stopped right away. Interest rates will be reduced to make mortgage payments more affordable based on hardship. First portion of the professional fee to be paid soon to enable their legal team to start the process. We paid the retainer fee and sent all docs on time and waited and called with no response and so far they have not done anything at all. Main Law PC cheated us with false promises and not only deprived us of valuable time and money, they are still cheating others in same manner. Please stop themDesired Settlement: We would like MAIN LAW PC and the main attorney [redacted] to be stopped from cheating and deceiving innocent people in dire situation.

Business

Response:

Client/Borrower retained Main Law, P.C (the "Firm") on March 14,2014 to assist them in obtainingloss mitigation alternatives in connection with their mortgage with their lender. Pursuant to theRetainer Agreement (the "Agreement"), services to be provided to client/borrower included analysisof their current financial position and future payment capabilities, lender questionnaire prior to theacceptance ofthe file was completed. Other services performed are the submission of a QualifiedWritten Request ("QWR"), comprehensive compilation, review, and analysis of relevant financial iand I lending_documents,_the_submission_of_a modification_package_to_theirJender and a full _________ .investigation of the Homeowners Bill of Rights by and through the responses to the QWR from the ~ilender.All services to be provided to consumers seeking representation of the Firm are clearly andconspicuously disclosed via the Agreement prior to the consumer becoming a client of the Firm. 1i Moreover, the Agreement clearly states that the Firm cannot guarantee any client a lower mortgagepayment or a modification of their existing loan; rather, clients of the Firm are only promised that theFirm will use its best efforts to perform the agreed upon services as set forth of the retainer. To thatend, the client/borrower was provided the Agreement and ample time to not only review the contentsthereof, but to ask questions necessary to clarify the scope of representation offered. The Firmprovided the client/borrower with representation in connection with pursuing loss mitigation effortson their behalf; regularly communicating with both client/borrower and their lender. In addition toreviewing and analyzing the client/borrower financial documentation and assembling the necessarydocumentation to submit a loss mitigation package, the Fjrm submitted and monitored the status of, acomplete loan modification package on behalf of the client/borrower. Main Law PC submitted therequest for assistance to lender on March 25th, 2014 and sent requested docutnentation on Aprill'fh.2014. On April 241h, 2014 lender re~assigned a new point of contact on their behalf. On April 25th,2014 the loan modification request was denied. The date of the denial we learned through lender thefile had previously been denied on February 27th, 2014 and were informed in detail ofthe denialbeing for a Home Affordable Modification Program. Per lender the file was re-opened and denied forthe Home Affordable Modification Program in which Main Law PC appealed the decision reachedand asked that the file be reviewed for other alternatives to assist the homeowner avoid foreclosure.Because the escalation the Attorney ofthe firm made through the Executive Offices of lender file hadbeen re-open for a reviewed for the following programs: in-house assistance. and modificationaffordability programs. The processing of this file went on over a 5 month period and involved over30 hours of processing/paralegal time and 4~5 hours of attorney time. Lender did suggest thatclient/borrower contact Keep Your Home California for assistance to reinstate the mortgage loan.Main Law PC did do research and provided client/borrower with contact information to Keep YourHome California centers. It was our intention to coordinate homeowner's efforts in this area withlender. Even though our work under the retainer was completed per its te~ms we. were willing tocontinue assisting the client. However on September 16111,2014 Main Law PC was contacted bylender asking that we please send them a withdraw of representation for the client/borrower becausethe homeowner had requested to have us removed. This action caused us to cease furthernegotiations.

Review: I was contacted by Mailaw PC via us mail advertisement. The advertisement stated that they could get your home modified by using their "PC" professional corporation contacts. I spoke with the agent on numerous occasions about what they had to offer. I also stated that I was currently in a modification program for the past (3) years and I was current with my payments. I then was told that they could have my property modified to fair market value. I also informed them of my current modification alows my lender to place a defered amount on the back of the loan and I will have (1) balloon payment at the end of the loan period. The agent at Mainlaw PC [redacted] said that if I qualify for the modification program that they would be able to have that modified as well. This drew me in and I signed into agreement to have this service performed for me. I then sent them the agreed (2) payments of $1,750.00 once they said that I was approved for the program. After waiting for some notification for (60) days They were unable to do anything that they said they would be able to do. I was mislead by the agent [redacted] of Mailaw PC and literally had to beg to get a refund of only $1,000.00. I am out of $2,500.00 for just con artist practices. My leander stated that they told Mainlaw that I had no hardships to claim.Mainlaw PC knew this and still took my money!Desired Settlement: I feel that they mostly file or mail documents that do cost what I have paid for. I feel that I should be refund for more than $1,000.00. Mailaw should stop their misleading practices so that others will not fall into their web of con artist practices. People work hard for their money and should not be "Maloofed"out of their hard earned money. Mainlaw PC owes me another $2,000.00 at a minimum.

Business

Response:

Please find enclosed the following documentation:

1) Cancellation/Release of Liability

We had sent Mr. [redacted] the enclosed Cancellation/Release of Liability. We enclosed a check, and

indicated if it was deposited (cashed) it would constitute his acceptance of payment as full

resolution of any and all dispute between himself and our firm.

We are unsure whether Mr. [redacted] filed this complaint with the Revdex.com, and then cashed the check,

or vice versa. We have attempted to contact Mr. [redacted] via phone call for 2 week& to clarify the

situation, but have been unsuccessful to date in contacting him. It is our understanding the matter

had been resolved. Thank you for your time and help in this matter.

Sincerely,

[redacted], Esq

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.

In my response to Mainlaw PC. They have not tried to contact me. Someone is at my home daily. Mainlaw PC has had all my contacts since they falsely advertised when they said that I qualified for a principal reduction program. They contacted and directed me how to deposit my money into a trust account at Bank of America. I find that to be a simple lie on their part. Yes they did send me a check for $1,000.00 and I did not sign the form that they sent. I spoke to I believe was [redacted] or who ever it was on the phone. I that brief conversation he flat out told me he would on refund me $500.00. I then told him that that was absurd! I then went into dialog trying to recoup at a minimum of $2,000.00 of my $3,500.00 that I sent his PC in good faith. My lender said that companies such as his can not tell a consumer that they qualify for any mortage programs when they are not lenders or brokers. I am a father that has been helping my (2) children through college and I pleaded with [redacted] to see that his company did not do $2,500,00. Mainlaw PC owes me at a minimum another $1,000.00 as I do understand retainers for attorneys. [redacted] or Mainlaw PC should be fair on this matter. No I am not satisfied and the falsely advertised when there representative [redacted]. told me that I qualified for a program where they are not authorized to tell the consumer so according to my lending institution. So enclosing. I am not satisfied and I want my money back!!!

Cell 707-720-5702

Home 707-421-2703

[redacted]@juno.com

Mainlaw PC has had my contact information before I deposited my money into their trust account at Bank of America and they had my contacts when I was trying to plead with them for a fair refund.

Regards,

Business

Response:

Pursuant to your suggestion we have recontacted [redacted] and worked out a

settlement wherein we will provide him another check in the sum of $750, which

when cashed will constitute full resolution of any and dispute between himself and

our firm. The check will be mailed out tomorrow, October 3, 2014 which should be

received by Monday or Tuesday of next week.

You have indicated you will confirm this next week. I would suggest waiting until

after he received the check so he can confirm the settlement.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Review: I received an eligibility mailer from this firm that appeared to be from a finance company. It was offering me the opportunity to have my home mortgage motified; so that my monthly payments could be reduced. I responded to the offer, only to find out that it was a law firm located in California. They guaranteed that my mortgage would be reduced significantly if I agreed to let them negotiate my modification with my mortgage provider. They charged me $3,750.00, of which I only paid them $1,750.00. They informed me to stop paying my mortgage payment. After two months, I finally reached out to my mortgage provider to find out that the law firm cannot offer me anything more than what the bank can. They misrepresented their firm and are running a scam. I am not deeper in debt to my mortgage provider and have been placed into foreclosure. They should not be allowed to mislead people and rob them of their hard earned money.Desired Settlement: I demand all of my monies ($1,750.00) paid to this firm, be returned to me immediately. They are misleading the public and did absolutely nothing to deserve the money. I am now in the process of trying to get my mortgage loan reinstated with my mortgage lender. I am in default due to the lack of payment.

Business

Response:

Mrs. [redacted] contacted us in December 2013 when she was already 3 months late, the mortgage statement sent to us also showed the

delinquency amount.

She was never advised to

go behind.

We contacted the lender immediately and started the process with a positive outcome, file was approved

for trial modification on 3/10/2014 . New payment is $1,409.34 with first payment

due April 1, 2014.

Client never paid her retainer balance due to our firm and simply ignored our calls as soon as the lender contacted them with good news.

Client hasn't answered our calls in a month.

Client should not have any reasons to file this complaint.

Our firm will refund Mrs [redacted] $1,750.00 and close this case.

Consumer

Response:

I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] and find that this resolution would be satisfactory to me. I will wait for the business to perform this action and, if it does, will consider this complaint resolved.

I will withdraw my request once I have been refunded, via certified check, in full by the company. The loan modification was completed by my doing. I am now appealing it with my mortgage provider and am getting it my mortgage payment reduced to a more affordable payment as what they reduced it to (1409.00) is only 53.00 less than the original mortgage payment.

Regards,

Review: Their company guaranteed a 2-4% loan amount based on me being a veteran and they could help me through their abilities to advocate. It turns out I could have done that myself. They changed case worker after case worker and gave me the run around for 6 months since April 2014 - October 2014. They did nothing for me charged me 3500. cash up front . They told me I didn't qualify through a company I already have a loan with , [redacted]. They said they were sorry and kept my money and called it a retainer fee. I wrote a letter of complaint and they never responded to my formal complaint. Therefore, I paid for no service and they misrepresented what they said they could do for me. Id like most of my money back or part of it. Note had to enter a 2015 date cause system would not accept 2014 date. This company is misrepresenting ,doing contracts by email and fleecing people. I bet this not the first complaint on this company.Desired Settlement: Id like my 3500.00 back based on their misrepresentation, no service rendered and they never said it was a retainer. They said it would go into a fund and once services were complete ,they would pay themselves.If not I would like at least half for no services rendered. I still have the same loan at 7% interest with green tree. They did nothing for the money I paid.

Business

Response:

client retained Main Law, P.C (the “Firm”) to assist them in obtaining loss mitigation alternatives in connection

with their mortgage with their lender. Pursuant to the Retainer Agreement (the

“Agreement”), services to be provided to client included a detailed

analysis of their current financial position and future payment capabilities, phone

call via three way was placed to lender with client to complete the lender

questionnaire prior to the acceptance of the file. One of the questions on the

lender questionnaire was whether client were eligible for a loan

modification. Based on all the information lender had about client and his existing loan the banks representative stated he was eligible for a

loan modification “HAMP” or other home retention programs. We felt

the bank would know a lot more about client then we did at that time.

Other services performed are the submission of a Qualified Written Request

(“QWR”), comprehensive compilation, review, and analysis of relevant financial

and lending documents, the submission of a modification package to their lender

and a full investigation of the Homeowners Bill of Rights by and through the

responses to the QWR from the lender.

All services to be provided to consumers seeking

representation of the Firm are clearly and conspicuously disclosed verbally and

via the Agreement prior to the consumer becoming a client of the Firm. Also

included in the Agreement are a detailed description of the fees to be charged

for services offered and a listing of events or additional services that would

trigger additional fees and/or costs for the client. Moreover, the Agreement clearly states that

the Firm cannot guarantee any client a lower mortgage payment or a modification

of their existing loan; rather, clients of the Firm are only promised that the

Firm will use its best efforts to perform the agreed upon services.

To that end, the client was provided the

Agreement and ample time to not only review the contents thereof, but to ask

questions necessary to clarify the scope of representation offered. We have no record of the client expressing

concern or questioning the terms of the Agreement as contemplated. The Firm provided client with

representation in connection with pursuing loss mitigation efforts on their

behalf; regularly communicating with both client and their lender. In addition to reviewing and analyzing the client financial

documentation and assembling the necessary documentation to submit a loss

mitigation package, the Firm submitted and monitored the status of, a complete

loan modification package on behalf of the client.We have attempted to contact client to address concerns raised. However we have been unable to reach them as the numbers listed are for our firm, and the number of file is no longer a working number.