Wednesday, September 26, 2012

No Duty To Report "Robosigner"

A recent judicial ethics opinion from Massachusetts holds that a judge is not obligated to report a "robosigner" to bar authorities:

  It is also noted that at this time, unlike at least one other jurisdiction, Massachusetts has not made robo-signing itself improper.  Cf. Administrative Order, Chief Administrative Judge of the Courts of New York, AO/431/11, available at http://www.nycourts.gov/attorneys/pdfs/AdminOrder_2010_10_20.pdf (in residential foreclosure actions, requiring lawyers to submit an affidavit that the lawyer "has communicated with the following representative or representatives of the Plaintiff, who informed me that he/she/they (a) personally reviewed plaintiff's documents and records relating to this case for factual accuracy; and (b) confirmed the factual accuracy of the allegations set forth in the Complaint and any supporting affidavits or affirmations filed with the court, as well as the accuracy of the notarizations contained in the supporting documents filed therewith.")           

           In this case, mere knowledge that a lawyer is on a list of robo-signers alone is not sufficient to know that the lawyer has submitted false documents.  Under these facts there is no mandatory duty to report under 3D(2). 

(Mike Frisch)

http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/legal_profession/2012/09/a-recent-judicial-ethics-opinion-from-massachusetts-holds-that-a-judge-is-not-obligated-to-report-a-robosigner-to-bar-uthorit.html

Judicial Ethics and the Courts | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef017d3c550aeb970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Duty To Report "Robosigner":

Comments

Post a comment