Acceleration

Who is Catalina Azuero, a Liar Lawyer at Goodwin Procter LLP?

This complaint is against an attorney registered with the Florida State Bar. The lawyers’ name is Catalina Azuero and she works for Goodwin Procter, LLP.

LIT COMMENTARY

We’re reviewing the attorneys who are listed on the CFPB v. Ocwen case in Florida, who are representing Ocwen. This article focuses on the background of liar lawyer Catalina E. Azuero, a Goodwin Attorney and her unethical practices in this and the ‘hot potato’ cases in Illinois and Georgia.

UPDATE; 2nd September, 2020

Emailed: 2:23 PM (2nd Sept., 2020)

Dear Mr. Wilhelm

COMPLAINT; CATALINA AZUERO; REF; 21-112 

Per your email stating it would arrive “shortly”. – Fri. 21st Aug.
Postmarked (reg. mail) – Mon. 24th Aug.
Arrived Kingwood TX, – Fri. 28th Aug. (p.m.)
Your letter demanded return by Mon. 31st Aug.
We ignored the prepaid reg. email and posted USPS priority mail (2 day delivery) same day, Friday, 28th Aug. as it took 5 days reg. mail to arrive.
Our priority shipping letter to the Florida Bar arrived today, 1.31 p.m – Wed., 2nd Sept.
As you are most likely aware, USPS deliveries are severely affected by the pandemic.
We are questioning why there was even a deadline applied to your letter, it’s not in any rules and certainly the demand timeline was unreasonable at a minimum.
We assume this will not affect our complaint.

Your earliest confirmation via EMAIL is respectfully requested.

Sincerely

Joanna Burke

RESPONSE;

From: Wilhelm, William W <wwilhelm@floridabar.org>
Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 2:35 PM
Subject: RE: YOUR LETTER W/AFFIDAVIT
To: Joanna Burke <kajongwe@gmail.com>

All good with your affidavit….Your complaint will be processed in a few days….be well…www

UPDATE; 30th August, 2020

The Burkes timeline. Filed a complaint via email submission on June 18th, 2020. Assigned case ref. 21-112 on July 6th, 2020. Letter dated July 9th sent to Burkes declining to process complaint without originals which was received by Burkes in last 3rd of July. The Burkes complaints end up with Mr Wilhelm of the Fl. Bar stating via late Friday evening email (Aug. 21) that the Burkes would receive a letter with stamped address envelope to return blue ink affidavit “soon”. No mention of deadlines. On Mon., Aug 24th Bar posted letter by regular mail. It arrived Friday afternoon, 28th Aug. The Burkes, returned it sameday via USPS priority mail. See short video below for details.

UPDATE; 4th August, 2020

The Burkes received a letter via snail mail dated 9th July from the Florida Bar declining to process the complaint. The Burkes only received this letter at the end of July due to the fact USPS is so far behind on delivering mail. Here’s the Burkes emailed response;

Dear Ms. Austin,

We refer to your email on July 6th with case reference number, 21-112 re Catalina Azuero complaint.

We were both surprised and appalled by the content of the copy letter attached, signed by William W. Wilhelm three days later. Not only did he decline to process the case via efiling, which we made clear was due to COVID-19 – you acknowledged the complaint with a reference number via email. For Mr. Wilhelm to then issue a letter by post and not even copy his curt and erroneous arguments and remit a copy via email is obtuse and quite frankly unacceptable.

We are elderly citizens (80+ years old) of Texas and have been following the stay at home order since Gov. Abbott announced it. As you are most likely aware, there is a pandemic and we are at risk due to our age and health. As such, we are still following the stay at home order (as recommended).

We can assure you that State Bar email complaints are more than acceptable – we have submitted complaints against other Goodwin Procter lawyers who were part of Ms. Azuero’s legal team in the related case with several other state bars. Florida is the only Bar which is attempting to usurp an executive order.

With that in mind, we anticipate an email by return confirming the Florida Bar is going to process our complaint as submitted via email OR advise the specific rule(s) which prevent your Bar from complying with the executive order(s) (and relying upon our age, health and location in Texas). We’d also like to know why the United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause and your Oath is being violated by your Bar during an international pandemic.

With prejudice.

Sincerely

United States District Court
Northern District of Illinois – CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:14-cv-02280

County Of Cook v. Bank of America Corporation et al
Assigned to: Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo
Referred to: Honorable Sunil R. Harjani
Cause: 42:405 Fair Housing Act
Date Filed: 03/31/2014
Jury Demand: Both
Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accommodations
Jurisdiction: Federal Question
Plaintiff
County Of Cook represented by David J. Worley
Evangelista Worley, LLC
8100A Roswell Road
Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30350
404-205-8400
Email: david@ewlawllc.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDDolgora D. Dorzhieva
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 11109
(212) 594-5013
Email: ddorzhieva@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDEzra Salami
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212)594-5300
Email: esalami@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJ. Birt Reynolds
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Email: breynolds@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames M. Evangelista
Evangelista Worley, LLC
500 Sugar Mill Road
Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
(404) 205-8400
Email: jim@ewlawllc.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames D. Montgomery , Sr.
James D. Montgomery & Associates, Ltd.
One North LaSalle Street
Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60601
(312)977-0200
Email: james@jdmlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJennifer Sarah Czeisler , F
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Email: jczeisler@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDKenneth A. Wexler
Wexler Wallace LLP
55 West Monroe
Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 346-2222
Email: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDKristi Stahnke McGregor
Evangelista Worley LLC
500 Sugar Mill Rd.
Suite 245A
Atlanta, GA 30350
404-205-8400
Email: kristi@ewlawllc.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMark J. Tamblyn
Wexler Wallace LLP
333 University Avenue
Suite 200
Sacramento, CA 95825
916-565-7692
Email: mjt@wexlerwallace.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMichelle M. Montgomery
James D. Montgomery and Associates
1 N. LaSalle Street
Suite 2450
Chicago, IL 60602
312-977-0200
Email: mmm@jdmlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDPeggy J Wedgworth
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
1 Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
212 591-5300
Email: pwedgworth@milberg.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRoy Shimon
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Email: rshimon@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSanford P. Dumain
Milberg Phillips Grossman LLP
One Pennsylvania Plaza
Suite 1920
New York, NY 10119
(212) 594-5300
Email: sdumain@milberg.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDUmar Sattar
Wexler Wallace Llp
55 West Monroe St.
Suite 3300
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 346-2222
Email: us@wexlerwallace.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
V.
Defendant
Bank of America Corporation represented by Alicia Rubio
GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1736
Email: arubio@goodwinprocter.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
Goodwin Procter Llp
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1000
Email: cazuero@goodwinprocter.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
Goodwin & Procter LLP
1900 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)346-4000
Email: thefferon@goodwinprocter.com
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
Goodwin Procter Llp
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1000
Email: bcox@goodwinprocter.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 570-1000
Email: CHerbert@goodwinlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 570-1000
Email: CHayden@goodwinlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
Goodwin Procter LLP
100 Northern Avenue
Boston, MA 02210
(617) 570-8347
Email: HDinger@goodwinlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
Goodwin Procter Llp
Exchange Place
53 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1000
Email: jmcgarry@goodwinprocter.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
Winston & Strawn LLP
35 W. Wacker Dr.
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 558-3728
Email: jmotto@winston.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
Goodwin Procter LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)346-4000
Email: Jyenouskas@goodwinlaw.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDLevi Swank
Goodwin Procter LLP
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 346-4000
Email: LSwank@goodwinlaw.com
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
Goodwin Procter Llp
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(212) 346-4000
Email: msheldon@goodwinprocter.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
Winston & Strawn, Llp
35 West Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
(312) 558-3213
Email: rdunigan@winston.com (Inactive)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
Goodwin Procter Llp
1900 N Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 346-4000
Email: srosesmith@goodwinprocter.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
Goodwin Procter Llp
Exchange Place
Boston, MA 02109
(617) 570-1000
Email: ychan@goodwinprocter.com
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Bank of America N.A. represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Countrywide Financial Corporation represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Countrywide Home Loans Inc. represented by Thomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Countrywide Bank FSB represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
BAC Home Loans Servicing LP represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc. represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Defendant
Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. represented by Alicia Rubio
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCatalina E. Azuero
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDThomas M Hefferon
(See above for address)
LEAD ATTORNEY
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDBenjamin Cox
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDChristopher J.C. Herbert
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDCourtney L. Hayden
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDHenry C. Dinger
(See above for address)
PRO HAC VICE
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJames W. Mcgarry
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph Laurence Motto
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDJoseph F Yenouskas
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDMatthew S. Sheldon
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDRyan Marc Dunigan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDSabrina M. Rose-Smith
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICEDYvonne W Chan
(See above for address)
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Movant
Cook County Sheriff’s Office
Movant
Office of the Chief Judge
Movant
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County

 

Date Filed # Docket Text
06/08/2020 494 NOTICE of Motion by Kenneth A. Wexler for presentment of motion for sanctions, 493 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 7/15/2020 at 09:45 AM. (Wexler, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 493 MOTION by Plaintiff County Of Cook for sanctions against Goodwin Procter LLP and Memorandum in of Law in Support Thereof (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr. in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions Against Goodwin Procter LLP)(Wexler, Kenneth) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/08/2020 492 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: The district judge has set a discovery schedule for the parties. To the extent the parties need a hearing on any discovery matter before the Magistrate Judge, they are requested to contact the Courtroom Deputy. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
06/05/2020 491 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Per the parties’ joint status report, fact discovery is extended and ordered closed by 8/28/2020. Deadline for County to serve expert reports: 10/12/2020. Deadline for Defendants to serve expert reports: 11/24/2020. Deadline for County to serve rebuttal expert reports: 12/14/2020. All expert discovery to be completed by 1/22/2020. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 3/31/2021. Status hearing is reset for 8/28/2020 at 9:45 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). The parties shall file a joint written status report by 8/21/2020. The court will enter a scheduling order in response to the status report. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 06/05/2020)
06/05/2020 490 STATUS Report (Joint) Report Concerning Discovery & Settlement by BAC Home Loans Servicing LP, Bank of America Corporation, Bank of America N.A., Countrywide Bank FSB, Countrywide Financial Corporation, Countrywide Home Loans Inc., Countrywide Warehouse Lending LLC, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Captial Inc., Merrill Lynch Mortgage Lending, Inc. (Sheldon, Matthew) (Entered: 06/05/2020)

Lawyer Complaint (Fl. Bar) : Catalina E. Azuero

This complaint is against an attorney registered with the Florida State Bar. The lawyers’ name is Catalina Azuero and she works for Goodwin Procter, LLP. Her law firm  represents Ocwen in the cited case below and she is one of the named counsel of record. The Burkes claim that Ms. Azuero violated (at a minimum) “Based on these facts, the Florida referee found Hagendorf guilty of violating rules 4-3.3 (candor toward the tribunal), 4-3.4 (fairness to opposing party and counsel), 4-4.1 (truthfulness in statements to others), 4-8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice) of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar.” – The Florida Bar v. Hagendorf, 921 So. 2d 611, 613-14 (Fla. 2006).

“The referee recommended that Niles be found guilty of violating the following provisions of the Rules Regulating the Florida Bar: Rule 3-4.3 (misconduct and minor misconduct) of the Rules of Discipline; Rules 4-1.2(a) (scope of representation), 4-1.4 (communication), 4-1.5 (fees for legal services), 4-1.6(a) (confidentiality of information), 4-1.7(b), 4-1.8(b), (d), (i), 4-1.9(b) (conflict of interest), 4-1.15 (safekeeping property), 4-2.1 (adviser), 4-4.1(a) (truthfulness in statements to others), 4-4.4 (respect for rights of third persons), and 4-8.4(b), (c), (d) (misconduct) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.” – Florida Bar v. Niles, 644 So. 2d 504, 506 (Fla. 1994).

Then there’s the Cobb County cases described herein, of which Ms. Azuero is counsel. Then there is the violation of  “The trial court found that the attorneys had violated Florida’s Rule of Professional Conduct 4–1.7, governing conflicts with current clients, and Rule of Professional Conduct 4–1.9, governing conflicts with former clients. ” Young v. Achenbauch, 136 So. 3d 575, 579 (Fla. 2014) with respect to Ms. Azuero. This resulted in suspensions for both lawyers, see; The Florida Bar v. Steven Kent Hunter, Case No.: SC16-1006, TFB No. 2014-70,728(11C) and The Florida Bar v. Philip Maurice Gerson, Case No.: SC16-1009, TFB No. 2014-70,729(11C).  The April 11, 2018 Supreme Court opinion is here:

https://efactssc-public.flcourts.org/casedocuments/2016/1006/2016-1006_disposition_141625_d31a.pdf .

Other cases specific to Goodwin are discussed below. The Burkes also draw the Bar’s attention to;  Cruickshank v. Dixon (In re Blast Fitness Grp., LLC), No. 16-10236-MSH (Bankr. D. Mass. Jan. 8, 2019)

And there’s also former Goodwin lawyer, now law professor, Associate Professor Luke M. Scheuer who previously held adjunct positions at Boston College Law School, the University of Massachusetts School of Law, and Boston University School of Law and his paper; “Duty to Disclose Lawyer Misconduct” (2010), Available at: https://works.bepress.com/luke_scheuer/2/, wherein he discusses cases like In Re Himmel.

The Burkes Motion to Intervene in Consumer Fin. Prot. Bureau v. Ocwen Fin. Corp., No. 9:17-CV-80495-MARRA-MATTHEWMAN  (S.D. Fla. 2017-2020)

Background: The CFPB initiated the civil case on April 20, 2017, alleging that Ocwen, in servicing borrowers’ loans, engaged in various acts and practices in violation of federal consumer financial laws. On January 4, 2019, Joanna and John Burke sought leave to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. (Doc. 220). The CFPB and Ocwen jointly opposed the motion to intervene (Doc. 224) and the Burkes filed a reply brief (Doc. 237). On May 30, 2019, the district court denied the Burkes’ motion to intervene (Doc. 375). The Burkes moved for reconsideration (Doc. 408). The Court denied that motion on July 3, 2019, (Doc. 411), and the Burkes noticed an appeal on August 2, 2019 to the Eleventh Cir., Case No. 19-13015. The Burkes have argued that Ocwen’s counsel, Ms. Catalina Azuero knowingly committed perjury and withheld evidence of the Greens case from the Burkes.

Denial of Intervention ‘As of Right’: Judge Marra denied the Burkes intervention as of right (Doc. 375, p. 4).

Denial of Intervention ‘Permissively’: Judge Marra also concluded the Burkes should be denied permissive intervention.

Analysis of Judge Marra’s Order [Reconsideration]; The Burkes then asked Judge Marra to reconsider. The courts fleeting order follows (Doc. 411, p. 3);

“In addition to the grounds stated in the Court’s Order Denying Intervention (ECF No. 375), the Court notes that intervention is not permitted to allow a party to seek or obtain evidence for other litigation as asserted by the proposed Intervenors. (See ECF No. 408 at 4).”

Judge   Marra’s  Implausible  Statement:  The     Burkes     address        the

proclamation that the ‘intervention is not permitted for the purposes of seeking or obtaining evidence for other litigation’ and which refers to p. 4 of the Burkes motion for reconsideration (wherein the Burkes detail reasons for their request to intervene, included obtaining documentation to assist with their ongoing and active litigation in Texas against Ocwen).

Obtaining “Evidence” as a Non-Party Without a Motion to Intervene: Recently, and most certainly after Doc. 411 was published by Judge Marra, the pro se Burkes were researching cases and citations which would help prove their arguments for their current appeal at the Eleventh Cir. (Case No. 19-13015). The results now raise a serious question as to the truth of the uncorroborated statement in law by United States District Judge Kenneth A. Marra (Doc. 411, p.3).

Disclosure; While it is a thorny issue, the Burkes have been left no alternative but to [separately] file a judicial complaint against Judge Marra. This CFPB v Ocwen case indirectly involves important matters pertaining to the Burkes litigation and homestead. When they located this titanic case, which could provide a vehicle for the Burkes to obtain either documentation and information that would assist in the Texas case(s) or could provide relief directly, they did so in a quick and legally correct basis. This is why the Burkes intervened in the S.D. Fl. Action.  The Burkes allege there had to be joint collusion between counsel for Ocwen, CFPB and Judge Marra to unlawfully deny rightful intervenors Burkes from joining the lawsuit, which is proven by the filings on the docket itself.

In the Texas case of Green v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Bankruptcy No. 12-38016 (13) (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019), which will be referenced as “Greens” for short, is one of a series of actual cases by the Greens, who are Texas homeowners, at the S.D. Tex. court against Ocwen. The order In Re Green was published on August 26th, 2019, e.g. After Judge Marra had disposed of the Burkes motion to intervene and reconsideration and after the Burkes Notice of Appeal (Doc. 414, Aug. 2, 2019).

A summary of the Greens own foreclosure case(s) is provided by U.S. District Judge Nancy Atlas’s order affirming Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur’s order, and allowing the Greens to retain access to ‘discovery’ documents as evidence for their own case against Ocwen.

The documents which the Greens actually obtained and Ocwen attempted to quash, would be from the lower court case in Florida. That is correct, these are documents (currently under seal at S.D. Tex.), from the CFPB v. Ocwen case before Judge Marra. See Green v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC (In re Green), Bankruptcy No. 12-38016 (13), at *2-4 (S.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2019).

The Burkes hold Ms. Azuero’s filings and statements to be false and untruthful. Ms. Azuero’s responses went further than zealously defending her client, she viciously maligned these pro se elderly citizens from Texas and all the while knowingly committing perjury in signed statements and filings in the lower court.

“Ocwen and the CFPB jointly opposed the Burkes’ motion, which the district court denied. On appeal, the Burkes repeat many of the same conspiracy theories and unsupported attacks on Ocwen and the CFPB that they alleged below, while failing to articulate any comprehensible, legally-supported rationale for why their intervention in this case is warranted. The Court should ignore the Burkes’ baseless and irrelevant attacks on the parties and affirm the district court’s well- reasoned decision.”

Then, without a flicker of foreboding that as an attorney she had an ethical duty to tell the truth, she repeated these lies again, months later, at the appeal court level. This was prejudicial to the Burkes by premeditated cheating and trickery e.g. lying and knowingly hiding the Greens case from the Burkes. Below is the introduction from Burkes’ reply brief on appeal at Eleventh Circuit (No. 19-13015):-

PREAMBLE AND DISCLAIMER

“First, a rather lengthy reply brief, including a recap of the case is necessary due to the bad faith conduct of the parties, the appellees in this appeal. While the Burkes wished to keep the reply short and concise, this has proven impractical due to the [mis]conduct as detailed here. The Burkes summary argument truly attempts to focus on the evidence, the facts, the pleadings and the law, but it ends up being sabotaged by a litany of ethical violations which include, but are not by any means exhaustive;

(i)    Collusion and Conspiracy.

(ii)   Bad Faith Conduct.

(iii)  Dishonesty towards the Tribunal.

(iv)  New evidence showing the Court and the parties must have known about the Greens case in S.D. Tex.

Second, the pro se Burkes have been left searching for the truth, rather than focusing on the appeal, due to apparent known concealment and dishonesty by the lower court.

The Cobb County Federal Court Cases in Illinois and Georgia

Ms. Azuero is counsel in the two actions the Burkes wish to reference in this matter. These are; Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:14-CV-02280), District Court, N.D. Illinois and Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:15-cv-04081-LMM), District Court, N.D. Georgia where the Burkes recently uncovered more unethical practices. Cobb Cnty. v. Bank of Am. Corp., 183 F. Supp. 3d 1332, 1333 (N.D. Ga. 2016)).

Here, Goodwin Procter approached the County’s named eleven witnesses, former loan officers who signed affidavits which explained the illegal loans the banks were issuing for financial avarice and not in the interests of consumers. Once Goodwin contacted them, these ex-employees of the Bank recanted in the majority, their claims from their first affidavit. Both the Illinois and Georgia judges stated that they were very troubled by the actions of Goodwin. In the Illinois case, there is a transcript of the hearing.  Ms. Azuero and her law firm represented the Bank in the Illinois case and her fellow partner, Matthew Sheldon was grilled by Judge Bucklo. (See transcript from Dec. 5, 2019 hearing, which was submitted to Judge May in Georgia; Doc. 53.14, Cobb County v. Bank of America Corporation (1:15-cv-04081-LMM) District Court, N.D. Georgia). Here’s a snippet; “I really don’t understand how you can represent them.” – “I do find it DISTURBING.”- Judge Bucklo.

After that hearing Goodwin promptly discarded the new witnesses (Doc. 83, March 25th, 2020) to fend for themself and after signing agreements to represent them.

The courts found that this meant the witness statements were moot [at this time]. While the Burkes dispute that opinion in law, the purpose of this complaint is the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Burkes now highlight the fact that ethically, the lawyer(s) actions are certainly not ‘moot’. Actually, in the Georgia action, Judge May has kept the ‘sanctions’ against Goodwin Procter, LLP, firmly on the table (Doc. 86, April 10th, 2020). As of Monday, June 8th, 2020, the Cobb County lawyers have officially filed for sanctions. See Doc’s 493/494.

Furthermore, it was clear that the judges and all counsel recognized that these witnesses could be charged with perjury upon independent review. Goodwin dropped them faster than a hot potato but the ‘hot potato rule’ does not support that decision; Under the “hot potato” rule, a “‘law firm that knowingly undertakes adverse concurrent representation cannot avoid disqualification by withdrawing from the representation of the less favored client.’”  The “hot potato” rule reflects that the “duty of loyalty to an existing client is so important, so sacred, so inviolate that “not even by withdrawing from the relationship can an attorney evade it. See also; https://definitions.uslegal.com/h/hot-potato-rule/  and State Comp. Ins. Fund v. Drobot, 192 F. Supp. 3d 1080 (C.D. Cal. 2016)

Certainly, from afar, the Burkes performed a quick audit and now question witness Jim Morelli’s employment history. Mr. Morelli is also a licensed notary public. So from a truth-seeking viewpoint, the fact that his Linkedin profile shows he worked from 1999-2007 – 8 years+ at First Franklin. But his affidavit states;

“I worked as an account executive at First Franklin from 2002 to 2006.” (Doc. 53.11, signed 30th Sept., 2019 by Mr. Morelli) – That’s 4 years.  It begs the question – which is the truth?

As another example, when you look at Arnold “Arnie” Fishman’s before (Doc. 53.19, signed 22nd June, 2015) and after affidavit (Doc. 53.3, signed 26th July, 2019), it is extremely troubling. Mr. Fishman is a licensed mortgage broker and very active in the mortgage industry, currently employed by BMO Harris Bank for the last 8+ years as a mortgage loan originator, according to his Linkedin profile.  From the outside looking in, it appears Mr. Fishman now does not wish to jeopardize the mortgage and banking industry, where he’s spent the best part of his career as a mortgage loan originator. It is indicative that if Mr. Fishman was interviewed, his statements could form the basis  of perjury as a result of intimidation. See “Courts have noted that “a unilateral communications scheme . . . is rife with potential for coercion.”  Kleiner v. The First Nat’l Bank of Atlanta, 751 F.2d 1193, 1202  (11th Cir. 1985)”. This is also affirmed by the expert report and declaration of Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr., an expert in the field of legal ethics and professional responsibility.

“Prima facie evidence exists that Goodwin Procter suborned perjury from the confidential witnesses by obtaining false declarations under penalty of perjury and, by analogy to the “sham affidavit doctrine…”

Please review Law professor Roy Simon’s credentials, including his declaration and opinion that these lawyers violated Georgia’s professional codes of conduct.

In connection with this motion, the Counties retained Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr., a leading expert in the field of legal ethics. He is the Distinguished Professor of Legal Ethics Emeritus at Hofstra University School of Law, serves as a legal ethics advisor to law firms, and is the author of the twenty editions of Simon’s New York Rules of Professional Conduct Annotated, as well as other books in the field of professional responsibility. (See Declaration of Roy D. Simon (“Simon Decl.”), ¶¶ 1, 4, Ex. A.) and his profile; https://www.hofstra.edu/faculty/fac_profiles.cfm?id=1410

Ms. Azuero’s Actions are Below the Bar

Ms. Azuero’s resume identifies her role in the law firm (Attorney, resume attached), her experience in litigation in consumer related cases and her many years of attorney experience (Admitted to the Fl. Bar in 2004). In the CFPB v. Ocwen case, she is listed as counsel.

Ms. Azuero’s attempts to defend this unethical approach to witnesses, merely reaffirms the cold and calculated deceitfulness she is and was prepared to take e.g. risking her reputation and law license to win the case. Aggregating the CFPB case and the Cobb cases, the evidence is sufficient to show by clear and convincing proof that Ms. Azuero’s dishonesties and deception are on the record and cannot be contested and she personally elected to commit this fraudulence in court filings.

Elder Abuse Demands Revocation of License

The Burkes point to the conduct of the lawyer in the filing of this complaint, and rely upon the local Supreme Court in Texas when citing; for example the 1994 case before the Texas Supreme Court where they concisely summarized the difference, rejecting the Texas Bar’s argument;

“Our inquiry relates to the classification of the crime, not the tribunal’s subjective judgment of character of the particular lawyer convicted. In short, we classify the crime, not the lawyer.” Thacker, Matter of, 881 S.W.2d 307, 309 (Tex. 1994).

Due to the seriousness of her harmful acts against the Burkes who are in their 80’s, in poor health and litigating to keep their home, this is elder abuse fraud when the Burkes’ legal and civil rights have been completely violated. Ms. Azuero has violated the Rules of Professional Conduct, has abused her attorney role and experience of many, many years, which was used to act unlawfully and substantively injured the Burkes in their ongoing case(s).

Indeed, in Michigan, the Judge summed up ‘big law firms’ as being more accountable than smaller firms; see El Camino Resources, Ltd. v. Huntington National Bank, 623 F. Supp. 2d 863 (W.D. Mich. 2007). , citing;  “This Court is fully aware of the “changes” in the “legal world” and attempts to stay abreast of them and deal with cases in an up-to-date fashion. Keeping that in mind, however, does not somehow lead this Court to believe that “changes” also mean adopting a set of principles and ethics for “mega corporations” and “monster law firms” which is something less than that imposed on small companies and lesser-size law firms.

Rule 1.7 stands as is for everyone. This Court notes that, if anything, large law firms have an even greater responsibility to incorporate satisfactory computer conflicts check systems simply because of their size and the fact the lawyers in these firms are not able to manually check their client lists for potential conflicts.” –

Lemelson v. Apple Computer, Inc., 28 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1419 (rejecting SWS’s approach of a size- dependent application of ethical rules regarding disqualification).

In conclusion, taking the repetitive offenses as described holistically, the Burkes contend Ms. Azuero’s actions are so egregious against the elder Burkes, her license should be revoked, sending a strong message to lawyers that this type of behavior will not be tolerated and is ‘Below the Bar’.

Submitted this day, Thursday, June 18, 2020

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Popular

ADVERTISE on LIT

Laws In Texas is a blog about the Financial Crisis and how the banks and government are colluding against the citizens and homeowners of the State of Texas and relying on a system of #FakeDocs and post-crisis legal precedents, specially created by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to foreclose on homeowners around this great State. We are not lawyers. We do not offer legal advice. We are citizens of the State of Texas who have spent a decade in the court system in Texas and have been party to during this period to the good, the bad and the very ugly.

Copyright © 2020 Laws In Texas. | All Rights Reserved.

To Top