Heartland Legal Group Background
Heartland Legal Group is a law firm located in the state of Florida. Before the lawsuit, the firm was able to boast high standards when it came to preparation for trial and their ability to negotiate settlements for litigation clients outside of court. The firm handled primarily foreclosure litigation cases, being involved in numerous litigations across the country . Their customer reviews, however, often praised the attorneys’ expertise in real estate, law, and bankruptcy. It was a known name in the legal field before the lawsuit, even being known for its attempts to help clients come up with affordable payment plans.
Because of the company’s reputation, clients often trusted this firm with their property and signature. However, it wasn’t long until many clients became victims of alleged serious crimes.
Lawsuit Summary
An Overview of the Lawsuit against Heartland Legal Group
In March 2010, the Texas-Mexico Border Coalition filed suit in the District Court for the Western District of Texas. The lawsuit against Heartland Legal Group alleged violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Texas-Mexico Border Coalition filed suit against the purported immigration forms distributor to seek a refund on behalf of people that purchased the Immigrant Form Kit from the company.
The plaintiffs in the case are the Texas-Mexico Border Coalition as well as BF and AA, who were both clients of Heartland Legal Group. The plaintiffs sought an injunction and restitution for the clients that utilized Heartland’s services. The alleged violations that Heartland engaged in include representing itself to be an agency of the United States and leading people to believe that its immigration forms were official government forms.
The lawsuit also alleges that Heartland Legal Group, through its salespeople, provided false or misleading information about the immigration process and providing immigration assistance. The plaintiffs also alleged that the form kit did not provide the proper instructions needed for a waiver application and was supposed to be written by an attorney. In the end, the Judge awarded Texas-Mexico Border Coalition attorneys’ fees of $25,000 and $43,466 in costs. The order also awarded BF and AA $202,034.52, which despite being incorrect at the time of the drafting of this article, likely has awarded them actual damages and restitution.
Lawsuit Proceedings and Updates
In August 2019, Heartland Legal Group filed a lawsuit against the law firm of Patterson Law Firm, LLC and its attorneys Nicole Schuster and Trina Patterson. The lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County. The suit alleges that Patterson Law Firm and its attorneys breached their fiduciary duties to its clients. In September and October 2019, Patricia Peters and Patricia Lutz, respectively, both filed a Notice of Intent to File a Lawsuit against the law firm of Patterson Law Firm, LLC. Each notice included claims for attorney misconduct. In October 2019, Nicole Schuster filed her Appearance to defend the firm and herself in these matters. It is unclear at this time whether Mary C. Patterson will also appear to defend herself.
In March 2020, the lawsuit between Heartland Legal Group and the Patterson Law Firm and two of its attorneys was dismissed by the Cook County Circuit Court, but the underlying claims brought by Patricia Peters and Patricia Lutz continue in that pending case.
Effects on Clients and Key Stakeholders
In the wake of the Heartland Legal Group lawsuit, clients and stakeholders of the firm have had to grapple with its implications. Clients of the firm face uncertainty as the case unfolds, but some have opted to remain loyal to the company. Employees of the firm have been affected through job insecurity, with some even leaving their positions. The firm’s reputation has also been challenged. The negative publicity surrounding the lawsuit has caused concern among clients that Heartland Legal Group may not be able to fulfill its obligations as a result. Furthermore, these issues have been compounded by the fear that the lawsuit could impact the firm’s ability to serve clients moving forward.
The lawsuit has also impeded the ability of Heartland Legal Group to engage with clients . Some clients have expressed worry that this lawsuit indicates the firm will not be able to provide them with the quality of service they expected. As part of the lawsuit, certain allegations were made about how the firm handles its operations. These allegations include that Heartland Legal Group made "disparaging" statements about other companies and that it made "material omissions" in its educational documents. In light of these allegations, clients of the firm may have concerns about the redundancy of Heartland Legal Group as a result of the lawsuit.
Overall, it is clear that the lawsuit against Heartland Legal Group has had a significant effect on both clients and stakeholders. The company has faced challenges in maintaining client relationships and public image, but it remains to be seen how the lawsuit will ultimately impact the firm.
Analysis and Insights from Experts
Given the nature of this case, it did not take long for the legal industry to begin weighing in with opinions on its potential impact. Christina Kunz of Bloomberg Law noted that "Some attorneys think that firms are likely to change their business model, but that’s not necessarily bad for clients." Tom Kirsch of ndlocal.com opined "What we can take away from this is that it is important for every person at a law firm, especially equity partners, to be aware of and communicate financial information with other equity partners." Mark Herrmann highlighted "the fact that Dewey seems to have offered most people years of golden parachutes and continued retirement benefits suggests — if true — that Dewey would prefer to go out without dragging everyone down with it."
Deanne Katzoff put together a list of points why Dewey settled noting that "settling makes sense for Dewey financially." Geoffrey Thomas added on that "this settlement is based on the specific circumstances in the Dewey & LeBoeuf case."
Considering the case in the broader scope of the legal industry, Leslie A. Gordon wrote "the case sheds light on an immediate problem facing all of law: how will law firms replace the billions of dollars in revenue generated by these types of cases?" Samuel D. Offer writes "Profiting from obviously negligent audit reports may be acceptable from an economics standpoint, but the unprincipled assumption is plainly beyond the pale of acceptable behavior." Jay Jorgensen cited the case as an example of "the necessity of heightened vigilance in the business practices of law firms."
Takeaways and Looking Ahead
As we move forward, there are a number of lessons to be learned from the Heartland Legal Group lawsuit. One lesson is that attorneys must do their due diligence when it comes to settlements. When a firm takes on a case, they should understand why someone was in foreclosure if they are moved by the ROI part of the equation. With that being said, Attorney or no, the bottom line is that people signed the paperwork that got them into the mess. If your first, second or third mortgage (any of which are undoubtedly higher than the market rate) is more than your home is worth you need to get help. Foreclosure is not the time to bury your head in the sand.
In addition to the above, while the amount of money lost by the consumers is doubly tragic , the upside is far worse. The worst part about this whole situation is that there will be a ripple effect that will be felt in the industry for years to come. My concern is that if things do not change then the next foreclosure attorney that wants to steal and defraud good, hardworking people is going to use the good ole "land shark" name that the Heartland Legal Group has earned for themselves. Lenders today are already wary about sending cases to attorneys so that aside, getting the green light will be even harder due to the substantiated, bad rep of the firm in question.
If there is anything that puts the industry in jeopardy, it is this case. From clients to lenders to regulators to the government, all have seen this and said, "Another one?" As a whole, while I applaud the government’s decision as any firm that steals from the less fortunate should be punished, my concern is that this is going to hurt a solution that has the potential to help struggling homeowners down the road.