44ag/11 - Maryland Courts

Mr. Weiskerger to minimize phone communications with
clients, and to utilize email to create a paper trail of actions
taken in the representation. Mr. Chapman testified that he
believed Mr. Weiskerger did an excellent job keeping him
informed.
Mr. Chapman testified that the consulting arrangement
with JW Capital began in November 2008. He stopped the
consulting arrangement and wound down the loan modification
following the complaints giving rise to this Petition. During
those two years, Mr. Chapman estimated the Firm handled loan
modifications for as many as 200 clients, and generated gross
revenues of approximately $300,000. He believed that many of
their clients came through referrals from prior clients. He also
testified that his firm satisfactorily resolved 95-98% of these
matters.
At the time the consulting Agreement was implemented,
Mr. Chapman and Mr. Weiskerger agreed to price the work
around $1,500 for a loan modification, out of which JW Capital
would receive $1,300 as a consulting fee, and the Chapman
Firm would receive the remaining $200. The Retainer
Agreement was structured so fees were due up front, or in a
series of installments paid in the beginning of the representation.
In Mr. Chapman’s opinion, anyone doing loan modification
work without getting a fee in advance was “crazy.” His practice
was to deposit the check for fees into the Firm’s escrow account,
and then pay the consulting fee to JW Capital after the check
cleared.
Mr. Chapman stated he reviewed applicable statutes and
the professional conduct rules before entering this arrangement.
In his view, Mr. Weiskerger and JW Capital were not doing
legal work, and he was paying them for the consulting services
they provided for clients they secured.
B. The Bogarosh Loan Modification
Barbara Bogarosh employed the Chapman Firm to assist
with a loan modification. Ms. Bogarosh testified that she was
delinquent on the mortgage on her home as a result of various
financial strains. In part, she was unemployed for a period, she
was unable to work while caring for a disabled parent out of
state for another period, and she was caught up in a familial
16