26.12.2013 Views

44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

commercial litigation practice. He remained with that firm until<br />

1998, doing primarily commercial litigation and some<br />

transactional real estate and corporate work. In 1998, Mr.<br />

Chapman became a solo practitioner, operating as the Chapman<br />

Law Group LLC (“the Firm”). The majority of his practice<br />

involves commercial real estate transactions, particularly the<br />

purchase, sales, and leases for shopping centers and other<br />

commercial parcels, with some associated litigation practice.<br />

In approximately 2007 or 2008, following the dramatic<br />

decrease in commercial real estate work, Mr. Chapman’s<br />

practice expanded to include loan modification work that was<br />

initially referred to him through existing clients. In contrast to<br />

his prior commercial practice, this work was mostly residential.<br />

The loan modification work increased, as residential<br />

defaults “skyrocketed” in the 2008-2009 time frame. In Mr.<br />

Chapman’s experience, lenders were inundated with<br />

modification requests, and navigating the process was a<br />

challenge. He noted that lenders were “understaffed,<br />

overworked, and started to compartmentalize.” It was<br />

particularly difficult to deal with the same person within a bank,<br />

or to get a consistent approach or a response to a modification<br />

request. Around 2008, Mr. Chapman became acquainted with<br />

James Weiskerger, who was also regularly involved in loan<br />

modification work. Mr. Weiskerger is not a lawyer. Mr.<br />

Chapman indicated he believed Mr. Weiskerger had a good<br />

reputation in the loan modification field. Following several<br />

meetings and discussions concerning mutual business<br />

opportunities, the two agreed to enter into a consultant<br />

agreement. Mr. Chapman testified that he did not consider loan<br />

modification work to be legal work. He also readily<br />

acknowledged that a major impetus for the arrangement was a<br />

change in the law that prohibited non-lawyers from collecting<br />

fees up front for loan modification work. In his opinion these<br />

new provisions expressly excluded lawyers from this<br />

prohibition. Therefore he discussed a business arrangement<br />

with Mr. Weiskerger where Mr. Chapman’s firm would manage<br />

the loan modification work, utilizing Mr. Weiskerger’s firm, JW<br />

Capital, LLC (“JW Capital”), as a consultant.<br />

Ultimately, a Consulting Agreement was executed on<br />

November 1, 2008 between JW Capital and the Chapman Firm.<br />

Pursuant to that Agreement, JW Capital was to use its best<br />

14

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!