In the past few months, the legal fraternity has been gaining interest in the Litigation Practice Group lawsuits.
Most of the questions concern the credibility of the Litigation Practice Group.
In this article, we provide information on the Litigation Practice Group Lawsuits.
We briefly discuss the facts and issues that led to the Litigation Practice Group lawsuits as gathered from several commentaries across the internet.
What is the Litigation Practice Group
If you have ever searched about credit repair services on the internet or other directories, then, you might have come across the Litigation Practice Group (LPG).
Litigation Practice Group was a law firm based in California that gained its fame from its ability as a debt settlement company that helped its clients resolve debts and enhance their credit scores.
The law firm helped their clients in the following ways:
- Extending credit repair services to clients burdened with debts or negative entries on their credit reports.
- Challenging creditors and credit bureaus into negotiating settlements or removals of debts.
- Enhancing clients’ credit scores by eradicating inaccurate or obsolete information from their credit profiles.
In general, the law firm specialized in debt relief, bankruptcy, and litigation matters around civil, commercial, and real estate.
However, on January 9, 2023, Naz II Holding sued Litigation Practice Group.
It is this suit that opened the Pandora’s box of several lawsuits that have since followed.
Eventually, the Litigation Practice Group closed down.
Consequently, credible internet sources state that the clients of the Litigation Practice Group received an email whereby they were notified of the closure and subsequently referred to Phoenix Law, Oakstone Law Group, or Gallant Law PC.
The three above-mentioned law firms (in bold) provide a variety of legal services to debtors, hence helping them to address their debt issues.
The Essence of the Litigation Practice Group Lawsuit
The lawsuit against Litigation Practice Group represents a legal proceeding instigated by two parties against LPG:
Naz II Holding, an investment firm, alleges that LPG is under the direction of Tony Diab, a disbarred attorney who has allegedly misappropriated millions of dollars from their investments.
A collective of consumers claims that LPG has violated both the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA) and the Georgia Debt Adjustment Act (GDAA).
The allegations include prematurely charging exorbitant fees for services before completion, disseminating false and deceptive information, and imposing excessive charges.
The Allegations Leveled Against Litigation Practice Group
The Litigation Practice Group lawsuit levels various accusations against the firm. These accusations include:
Unlawful and unethical conduct
Accordingly, in Naz II Holding LLC v Litigation Practice Group, the firm’s conduct is under scrutiny.
Revealed in the court documents are allegations that the firm is under the control of Tony Diab, a disbarred attorney with a history of ethical breaches, including diverting settlement funds intended for clients into his personal bank account.
In addition, Naz II Holdings claims that Tony Diab has stolen millions of dollars from investments belonging to Validation Partners LLC (VP).
Validation Partners LLC (VP) is a firm that raised capital for LPG’s debt resolution practice.
Unfair and deceptive Practices
In addition, Litigation Practice Group was also accused by its clients of imposing upfront fees for credit repair services.
This act is against the regulations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA).
Purportedly the firm charged fees exceeding 7.5% of debtors’ monthly payments to be distributed to creditors, which runs afoul of laws such as the GDAA.
In Adeofolarin Ademosu v Phoenix Law PC, Litigation Practice Group is on trial for transferring the account of their client to a third party. Further, the third party has been withdrawing money from the client’s account even where an apparent contract is non-existent.
Another allegation levied to the firm is with regard to information asymmetry where they fail to furnish clients with written contracts that outline their rights and obligations under CROA.
Furthermore, according to clients of the Litigation Practice Group, the firm made false or misleading assertions regarding its ability to enhance one’s credit scores, erase negative entries from credit reports, or negotiate debt settlements at amounts lower than what the client initially owed to creditors.
These allegations have been addressed in the case of Kenneth D. Hutchins v Oakstone Law Group PC whereby the plaintiff states that his debts were never cleared by the Litigation Practice Group and yet he had made payments for 28 successive months. In addition, LPG transferred his account to Oakstone Law Group without his consent.
In MARICH BEIN LLC, vs the Litigation Practice Group, PC and Oakstone Law Group PC allegedly, the court documents state that both the firms are owned by Tony Diab.
Accordingly, Marich Bein accused the firms of conspiring to avoid their contractual agreements.
This practice can be seen in their conduct whereby LPG ended contracts with at least 25,000 of its clients and transferred 15,000 to Oakstone.
Oakstone then threatened to cancel payments to Marich Bien from the client’s accounts.
Consequently, Marich Bien would suffer irreparable damage as it will not be able to recover from both companies.
The Current Status and Developments of the Litigation Practice Group Lawsuit
The Litigation Practice Group (LPG) lawsuit is an ongoing matter, characterized by noteworthy events and outcomes thus far:
- On March 20, 2023, LPG submitted a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in California, invoking an automatic stay on the proposed class action.
- On March 31, 2023, a federal judge dismissed LPG’s motion to dismiss the case, without prejudice. The judge stated that the court hadn’t yet evaluated the merits of the motion, allowing either party to reopen the case following the resolution of the bankruptcy proceedings.
- On April 14, 2023, Naz II Holding sought to lift the automatic stay and proceed with their lawsuit against LPG in Nevada. They contended that LPG’s bankruptcy filing was in bad faith and that they held a valid claim against LPG’s assets.
Impact of the Litigation Practice Group Lawsuits
If you are a potential or existing client of LPG, it is necessary to understand the potential consequences of engaging with them or their newly opened referrals. You could encounter:
- The risk of losing money or receiving subpar services from a company involved in severe legal and financial predicaments.
- The possibility of misinformation and false claims from marketing affiliates of LPG concerning their credit repair services.
- Exposure to unlawful or excessive charges for their services.
- The potential for harm to your credit score or an increase of your debts due to their actions or inactions.
- Challenges in pursuing legal remedies due to their bankruptcy filing.
Litigation Practice Group, while offering credit repair services to clients facing debt, faces a lawsuit brought by investment firms and a group of consumers.
The allegations include fraud, breach of contract, and violations of federal and state laws.
Although the lawsuit remains ongoing, LPG has sought protection through bankruptcy, which might affect its ability to function and provide services.
For individuals who hired LPG or are considering hiring its affiliates, it is vital to exercise caution and have information about the potential consequences they should expect from the Litigation Practice Group lawsuits.