California State Bar suspends Atty. Joel Bander, not once, but twice for "scamming" hundreds of homeowners in the U.S.

1. Bander escapes trial; Settlement with State Bar reached
By Rhony Laigo
Once again, Atty. Joel Bander will not be tried because a settlement has been reached
between him and the State Bar. This became definite after the State Bar cancelled the
Joel Bander case that was supposed to begin Monday, April 8, and the court calendar
showing that a stipulation – the agreement that enumerates the provisions that Bander
will need to comply with – is marked "to be filed."
The settlement was expected, however, after last week's settlement conference at the
courtroom of Judge Richard Platel in downtown Los Angeles. Earlier, Judge Richard A.
Honn – who was supposed to hear the case –instructed both Bander and the State Bar
to settle the case, calling it “costly.” The criminal lawyer was facing charges for allegedly
violating California State Bar rules relating to the loan litigation program his law firm –
the Bander Law Firm – initiated but failed after signing up over 800 clients in 2008 and
2009.
Clerk of Court Johnny Smith, who is assigned to VSC Judge Richard Platel has said
that details of the settlement will not be made public until the terms have been
submitted and accepted by Judge Platel. Viselman also has yet to return our calls as of
this writing to inquire about the details of the new settlement. But State Bar
spokesperson Amee Yarborough on Monday said she will provide the details of that
settlement as soon as they're available.
Bander was suspended for three months last year that ended last September. Bander’s
latest State Bar case was filed three months later – on December 20, 2012 – and it
involves 20 cases based on complaints by 10 homeowners. Prior to Tuesday’s
settlement, a pre-trial was held last March 28 at the courtroom of Judge Honn, where
Bander tried to exclude this reporter from covering the conference, which was marked
“Public Matter.”
Meanwhile, a review of Bander’s disciplinary record showed that it was also Judge
Platel who was assigned to the first case of Bander. The same record indicated that
Bander also tried to “Modify Terms of (his) Probation” and that he also filed a motion to
extend the provisions regarding restitution, both of which were denied by Judge Platel
last January 24. Court records showed that the first complaint against Bander racked up
more than $20,000 in fees that Bander will have to pay. More fees are expected to be
added to that amount after the second case.
In his first suspension, Bander must pass a professional responsibility test. The State
Bar had stated in the stipulation that Bander’s “misconduct evidences multiple acts of

2. wrongdoing or demonstrates a pattern of misconduct as there were 20 client matters
involved.” Bander had pleaded "no contest" to those charges and is under probation for
three years.
Just like most of the complainants in the first one, the new cases were all about
homeowners who signed up for the so-called “Save Your Home, Sue the Banks” loan
litigation program, where Bander promised to sue their lenders and force the latter to
reduce their mortgage payments or modify their loans. Back then, Bander ran weekly
full page advertisements in a competing newspaper in 2008 and 2009 to promote the
failed program. In early 2010, the 25-year-old Bander Law Firm filed for bankruptcy.
A few attorneys who have dealt with Bander in the past and who thought that Bander’s
three-month suspension was a “slap on the wrist” were not surprised to learn that the
same attorney, who is described as a “public figure” on three different Facebook pages,
was again charged by the State Bar. Some of them said they expect a longer
suspension for Bander this time. A former lawyer – who had worked at the Bander Law
firm – opined that Bander may have to serve the rest of his stayed two-year suspension
that Bander stipulated in the first case.
According to San Francisco-based State Bar defense lawyer Jerome Fishkin, “some
attorneys, because of the severity of the offense or the little likelihood of success, will
choose to resign rather than face State Bar prosecution. Others will lose a contested
case and will be disbarred,” as posted in his website www.fishskinlaw.com.”
Fishkin also described that “The State Bar is an adversary system” and that the “people
do not become State Bar investigators and prosecutors (like Viselman) because they
want to help attorneys. The prosecutorial mentality in general is to find fault and fix
blame.” Fishkin also warned that “in recent years, State Bar prosecutors (have) become
seemingly petty and mean-spirited.”
Although Fishskin recommends that lawyers get a State Bar defense counsel, Bander
has represented himself. Bander, who did not have any disciplinary record prior to last
year’s suspension, will soon have two suspension records that will be permanently
displayed under his name in the roster of attorneys.
Viselman had told the court that they were prepared to call 35 witnesses against
Bander, including former clients and lawyers of the Bander Law Firm.