Court Documents In 'Mass Joinder' Contingency Fee Lawsuit Suggest One Attorney May Be Pocketing Upfront Fees From Clients Without Telling Co-Counsels

Court documents filed in a Los Angeles, California Superior Court in connection with a 'contingency fee' (ie. no upfront fees) mass joinder lawsuit on behalf of homeowners who were allegedly screwed-over by Bank of America and others indicate that an all-out brawl has apparently broken out involving the attorneys from separate law firms who initially came together, as co-counsel, to represent the multitude of homeowners bringing the case.

More specifically, the subject documents represent a motion filed by one group of the plaintiffs' attorneys essentially requesting that the court boot two specific attorneys from any further involvement in the case, at least with respect to certain specified plaintiffs.

Among the concerns of the attorneys filing the request with the court is that they have received reports from some of the homeowner/clients that at least one of the other two attorneys is pocketing upfront fees from them for joining this 'mass joinder' lawsuit without the knowledge or consent of the motion-filing attorneys which, according to them, is a case that is a contingency fee case requiring no upfront fees from the homeowners.

For the court documents, see Ronald v. Bank of America, et al. - Motion to Remove Mitchell J. Stein.

See Brookstone Law, SML and Apex Join to Protect Homeowners for a recent press release issued by the motion-filing attorneys in this case which, in part, addresses the racket some other attorneys are perpetratrting in connection with collectiing up front fees from bankster-defrauded homeowners in exchange for allowing them to sign up for 'mass joinder' lawsuits.

Thanks to Deontos for the heads-up on the court documents.