(a) An attorney is exempt from this part, with the exception of § 1015.5, if the attorney:
(1) Provides mortgage assistance relief services as part of the practice of law;
(2) Is licensed to practice law in the state in which the consumer for whom the attorney is providing mortgage assistance relief services resides or in which the consumer's dwelling is located; and
(3) Complies with state laws and regulations that cover the same type of conduct the rule requires.
(b) An attorney who is exempt pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section is also exempt from § 1015.5 if the attorney:
(1) Deposits any funds received from the consumer prior to performing legal services in a client trust account; and
(2) Complies with all state laws and regulations, including licensing regulations, applicable to client trust accounts.
Notes of Decisions
Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Lanier Law, LLC, 194 F. Supp. 3d 1238 (M.D. Fla. 2016).
· cites it 8× “The Lanier and Fortress Defendants contend that the FTC is not entitled to summary judgment on these Counts because Defendants are exempt from the requirements of Regulation O pursuant to the exemption for attorneys codified at 12 C.F.R. § 1015.7 . See Lanier Response at 6,…”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Mortg. Law Grp., LLP, 157 F. Supp. 3d 813 (W.D. Wis. 2016).
· cites it 7× “Although I conclude that Regulation 0 as applied to licensed attorneys not engaged in the practice of law in subsections (a)(1) and (2) of 12 C.F.R. § 1015.7 is a valid exercise of plaintiffs rulemaking authority under the Consumer Protection Act, I find that plaintiff exceeded…”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Mortg. Law Grp., LLP, 182 F. Supp. 3d 890 (W.D. Wis. 2016).
· cites it 6× “In an order dated January 14, 2016, I considered the parties’ cross motions for summary judgment and determined that (1) plaintiff exceeded its rulemaking authority in promulgating 12 C.F.R. § 1015.7 (a)(3) and (b), which required attorneys seeking an exemption under the…”
Consum. Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Mortg. Law Grp., LLP, 366 F. Supp. 3d 1039 (W.D. Wis. 2018).
· cites it 3× “§ 5517 (e)(1) ; 12 C.F.R. § 1015.7 . II. Summary Judgment Holdings Consistent with the court's detailed findings of undisputed fact and conclusions of law, which will not be repeated in this opinion, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in the following…”
FTC v. Charles Marshall (9th Cir. 2019).
“1 Third, the undisputed facts establish that Marshall was at least recklessly indifferent to Brookstone’s and AL’s misrepresentations, making him jointly and 1 Marshall contends on appeal that he is entitled to the “attorney exemption” to the MARS Rule under 12 C.F.R. § 1015.7…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.