Attorney Mitchell Roth’s Law Firm Closed
-Attorney’s Frivolous Lawsuits Wreaked Havoc-

Attorney Mitchell Roth, who gained notoriety by filing hundreds of frivolous lawsuits against the industry’s trustees, has suffered a series of setbacks resulting in the closure of his firm, MW Roth, PLC.

After requiring Roth to personally appear and disclose his fee arrangements, how many suits he’d filed and failed to prosecute, on January 30th, U.S. Central District Judge Manuel Real, ordered attorney Mitchell Roth to refund fees paid by his clients in several cases. 

Mr. Roth’s attorney subsequently stated that the Roth firm was out of business.  Roth’s website, trueforeclosurerelief.com, was also down.

An article that ran in the September 24, 2008 issue of SFweekly.com detailed, from one victim’s perspective, the modus operandi of the Mitchell Roth scheme.  A consumer rights advocate with the National Consumer Law Center in Washington, D.C. called the typical contract between the Nevada shell company United First, Inc. (Mitchell Roth is the attorney representing that ‘company’) and victims of the fraud “just mind-boggling. … Bogus doesn’t begin to define it.”  Another real estate attorney notes that the contract between United First and its ‘clients’ “asks you to waive your rights, but the rights aren’t waivable.”

Ron Roup, Esq., Roup & Associates, and UTA Board member noted; “Mr. Roth’s arrangement seems to have had borrowers pay him for additional time in delaying the foreclosure and eviction instead of paying the mortgage payment to the lender. With over 2,000 clients solicited for this arrangement paying an initial fee between $1,500 - $2,000, plus subsequent fees paid for the delays, this amounts to a substantial sum of money collected from borrowers. Do the math. This arrangement also discouraged loan modifications with the borrower since it would cease the flow of income to the firm.” Roup added, “These cases were regularly removed to federal court where the Roth firm failed to defend the actions and judge’s have finally begun to sanction the Roth firm, not the borrower, and the firm’s practices have been referred to the State Bar and several District Attorney Offices.”

“What made Roth’s cases problematic was the number he was filing,” said Robert Finlay, Esq. Wright, Finlay & Zak, a UTA Board member who represented many trustees in cases involving Roth. 

Read Judge Real’s Order

Read San Francisco Weekly article

Read article by T. Robert Finlay, Esq., from 2008 UTA Quarterly