 |
 |
 |
February 2011 Newsletter |
 |
|
|
 | Consumers Prevail When Banks Unable to Prove Right to Foreclose
by ROBERT DREXLER, ESQ. |
|
The financial fallout due to the imprudent loan practices made by the nation’s banks over recent years has hit the country’s economy hard. Of course, no people have felt the impact more than those who have lost their homes in foreclosure. Much has been heard about foreclosures being halted due to the discovery of “robo-signing” and other loan collection and foreclosure irregularities
[Read More] |
|
|
What Happens When the Attorney General Settles Claims Asserted in Your Pending Class Action?
By LAUNA ADOLPH, ESQ. |
|
On December 15, 2010, DirecTV Inc. announced that it had settled a consumer protection dispute with state attorneys general in 50 states concerning how it deals with satellite TV customers over cancellation fees and other practices. Pursuant to the settlement, DirecTV agreed to pay state governments $13.5 million to cover legal and investigative costs and fund consumer protection programs. Unresolved complaints involving conduct addressed in the complaint are eligible for a restitution program, and consumers can file a complaint with DirecTV to be considered for the restitution program. The company also agreed to clearly outline all costs, services offered, length of contracts and terms of cancellations.
[Read More] |
|
| Protecting the Identity of and Communications with Members of the Putative Class
By ELIZABETH HALL, ESQ. |
|
Traditionally, the identity of an attorney’s client is not privileged unless an exception applies. Hays v. Wood, 25 Cal.3d 772, 785 (1979). One exception exists where “known facts concerning an attorney’s representation of an anonymous client would implicate the client in unlawful activities and disclosure of the client’s name might serve to make the client the subject of official investigation or expose him to criminal or civil liability.” Id. Another exception arises when “known facts regarding an attorney’s representation are such that the disclosure of the client’s identity would betray personal, confidential information regarding the client.” Hooser v. Superior Court, 84 Cal.App.4th 997, 1005 (2000). For example, in Rosso, Johnson, Rosso & Ebersold v. Superior Court, 191 Cal.App.3d 1514, 1518 (1987), the court treated a client’s identity as privileged because revealing his name would reveal the nature of the client’s medical problem, the very reason the client contacted the attorney in the first place.
[Read More] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
