## Facts

- Farzad Naderi was licensed to practice law in California but was not admitted in South Carolina and did not seek pro hac vice admission.
- Naderi operated a loan-modification business under the name Pacific National Law Center (PNLC) and offered services to a South Carolina homeowner, J.H.
- In December 2013, J.H. retained PNLC to negotiate a mortgage loan modification and paid a $2,995 fee pursuant to an “Attorney Client Retainer Agreement.”
- The engagement documents described PNLC’s work as “legal services” and “representation” in negotiations with the lender; a lender-authorization form specifically identified Naderi as the authorized contact (listing his title as “Paralegal”).
- PNLC personnel represented that they could obtain a modification with a balance reduction and lower fixed interest rate and promised prompt communication.
- After J.H. completed payments, he had difficulty contacting PNLC; calls were not returned, and no modification or alternative solution was obtained.
- J.H. received notice of a foreclosure hearing, appeared without counsel, then hired other counsel and filed bankruptcy to save his home.
- Naderi had prior discipline in California relating to similar loan-modification activities involving unauthorized practice in other states.
- In the South Carolina disciplinary matter, Naderi did not cooperate with the investigation, did not answer formal charges, and did not appear at the evidentiary hearing.

## Issues

1. Whether an out-of-state lawyer who provides legal services to a South Carolina resident without South Carolina admission violates South Carolina professional-conduct and disciplinary-enforcement rules.
2. What sanction is warranted where the lawyer defaults in the disciplinary proceeding, fails to cooperate, and the misconduct involves client harm and prior similar discipline.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of South Carolina adopted the Hearing Panel’s report and recommendations.
- Naderi was debarred from the practice of law in South Carolina and barred from any form of admission (including pro hac vice) absent permission from the court.
- Naderi was ordered to pay the costs of the disciplinary proceedings.
- Naderi was ordered to make restitution to J.H. in the amount of the fee paid for the loan-modification representation.

## Legal Principles

- A state may regulate and discipline an attorney licensed elsewhere who provides legal services affecting the state’s residents without authorization to practice in that state.
- Providing “legal services” and “representation” for a local client without admission constitutes unauthorized practice and subjects the lawyer to professional discipline.
- A lawyer’s default in disciplinary proceedings permits the allegations to be treated as admitted and supports sanctions based on the established record.
- Taking a fee while failing to competently pursue the client’s objective, failing to communicate, and effectively abandoning the matter supports findings of professional misconduct and severe discipline.
- Prior similar discipline and noncooperation with disciplinary authorities are aggravating factors supporting heightened sanctions, including debarment, to protect the public.

## Conclusion

The court debarred an out-of-state attorney who provided unapproved legal services to a South Carolina homeowner through a loan-modification operation, failed to competently and diligently pursue the matter, defaulted and did not cooperate in the disciplinary process, and was ordered to pay costs and restitution.


In re Naderi, 426 S.C. 476, 827 S.E.2d 582 (S.C. 2019)