notary closings

Battle Between Massachusetts Closing Attorneys vs. Settlement Service Providers Argued Before SJC

by Rich Vetstein on November 2, 2010

in Closings, Massachusetts Real Estate Law, Title Defects

Breaking: SJC Rules In Favor Of Real Estate Attorneys

Billion Dollar Mass. Closing Industry At Stake

Today, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court heard arguments in the closely watched case of The Real Estate Bar Association of Massachusetts, Inc. (REBA) v. National Real Estate Information Services, Inc. (NREIS). This case pits Massachusetts real estate closing attorneys versus out of state non-attorney settlement service providers which are attempting to perform “witness or notary” closings here in Massachusetts. At stake is the billion dollar Massachusetts real estate closing industry.

Unauthorized Practice of Law?

I wrote previously about the case in this post. Massachusetts’ long standing practice is for licensed attorneys to oversee and conduct the residential real estate closing process. NREIS’s business model is to outsource the vast majority of those functions to back office workers who aren’t trained attorneys. REBA argues that this practice violates Massachusetts common law and consumer protection statutes requiring that attorneys perform the most vital functions of a real estate closing transaction, such as certifying and analyzing title, preparing the deed, handling the transfer of good funds, where necessary, and conducting the closing.

The case was originally brought in federal court, where NREIS won and obtained a $1Million attorney fee award. But the federal appeals court overturned that ruling, and asked the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court to answer the question of whether and to what extent a residential real estate transaction and closing is the “practice of law” required to be performed only by a licensed attorney.

Questions From the Bench & Analysis

  • A favorable decision also upholds the notion that attorneys are vital to the conveyancing system, protect consumers, and cannot simply be outsourced to a non-trained drone. We’ve seen disastrous results when untrained folks try to perform legal tasks with the foreclosure robo-signing scandal. And the SJC may be sensitive to this having just heard the Ibanez foreclosure case.
  • Several of the justices weren’t buying NREIS’s argument that its non-attorney back office processors never make legal judgments, but instead simply “flag issues.” Justice Cowen raised several examples of situations requiring an attorney’s trained eye, such as analyzing a title examination, analyzing title defects, and ensuring that loan documents, the deed and mortgage are in the correct form.
  • Justice Cowen said that NREIS couldn’t delegate everything to a paralegal. At some point an attorney had to make the final call. And I think that is where the Court will end up on this case–hopefully!
  • Justice Gants and Spina both showed their studying of the conveyancing process in asking whether NREIS needed to have attorneys certify title (they do under state statute) and analyze a title rundown (yes, again).
  • Don’t bet against the SJC ruling against real estate attorneys in this case. After all, the justices are attorneys themselves. And they are humans. Whether they admit it or not, they are naturally inclined to favor their brethren of the bar.

Why This Case Is Important To Mass. Consumers

The purchase of a home is usually the most important investment most families will ever make. Home buyers and sellers, as well as lenders, rely on the training, professionalism, and integrity of attorneys to ensure that their property rights are protected. The reason that only lawyers can give legal advice is to protect the public. It gives the buyer and lender someone to hold accountable if there are mistakes. These multiple levels of protection permit buyers, sellers and lenders to confidently and reliably close loans worth hundreds of thousands of dollars every day. Non-attorney closings only hurt the consumer. In recent years, the real estate closing process has become as more complicated than ever. In “witness only” or “notary” closings, the non-attorneys who conduct the closings do nothing more than witness the execution of the closing documents, and cannot provide any legal guidance. What happens if an issue arises at closing requiring legal analysis? The closing attorney has the training to resolve it. The non-attorney closer will just sit there and can do nothing. Lastly, due to increased competition, there is no difference in cost between non-attorney closing companies and real estate attorneys.

In addition to the parties’ briefs, the SJC has received nearly 20 friend of the court briefs, virtually all of which support REBA’s position that NREIS is engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. SJC briefs can be found here. The webcast is found at the Suffolk Law School website.

The SJC should issue a final ruling in several months.

{ 6 comments }

Notary Or “Witness” Closings Won’t Be Coming To Massachusetts Yet: Attorneys Win Major Legal Victory

by Rich Vetstein on June 22, 2010

in Closings, Massachusetts Real Estate Law

In a huge victory for Massachusetts real estate closing attorneys, a unanimous First Circuit federal appeals court has overturned a controversial lower court ruling which had opened the door for non-attorneys to conduct controversial “witness” or “notary” real estate closings in Massachusetts. The lower court ruling threatened to overturn long-standing statewide practice under which attorneys conduct real estate closings, and open the door for the influx of “notary” or “witness” closings where buyers and sellers receive no legal guidance during the closing.

The First Circuit decision is found here. The lower court ruling is here.

Massachusetts Courts Have Final Say

The First Circuit ruled that the Massachusetts state Supreme Judicial Court has the final say on whether attorneys must conduct real estate closings under rules governing the unauthorized practice of law. The case will now move to the SJC, which may be more hospitable to the real estate attorneys’ position. The federal appeals court also vacated a $900,000 attorney fee award against REBA.

REBA’s Position

REBA and its members believe that non-attorney closings only hurt the consumer. In recent years, the real estate closing process has become as more complicated than ever. A myriad of Fannie Mae guidelines, disclosure requirements, and RESPA rules require the parties to review, understand and execute dozens of dense legal forms and disclosures. In an attorney conducted closing, a trained lawyer will carefully review each document with the parties and answer any questions which may arise. (Click here for our post on everything a closing attorney does). In “witness only” or “notary” closings, however, the non-attorneys who conduct the closings do nothing more than witness the execution of the closing documents, and cannot provide any legal guidance.

“The purchase of a home is the most important investment most families will ever make,” REBA President Thomas Moriarty has said. “Home buyers and sellers, as well as lenders, rely on the training, professionalism, and integrity of attorneys to ensure that their property rights are protected. The reason that only lawyers – who are those trained in the law – can give legal advice is to protect the public,” Moriarty said. “This requirement gives the buyer someone to hold accountable. These multiple levels of protection permit buyers, sellers and lenders to confidently and reliably close loans worth hundreds of thousands of dollars every day.”

The Cost Factor: Debunking The Myth

The appeals court also dismissed the closing company’s claim that requiring attorneys to conduct closings was an unconstitutional restraint on trade which would result in higher closing costs. As REBA President Tom Moriarty notes, and I can personally attest, the typical attorney’s charges in connection with a closing have steadily fallen as a result of increased efficiency and competition. This is not a situation where there is one company that controls the market. There are thousands of attorneys throughout the Commonwealth who provide conveyancing and settlement services, and the competition among them is fierce. The typical closing fees are similar or less than those charged by the closing companies.

My Take

As a real estate attorney who has worked tirelessly to build my own practice, I have a rather huge professional stake interest in this case. Despite this, I cannot see how, for the same cost, borrowers and home buyers would benefit from having a non-attorney drone sit at a closing and simply notarize the dozens of complicated legal forms and refuse to answer any legal questions which may arise.  This is especially the case where the legal landscape keeps getting more and more complex. Further, a non-attorney notary cannot resolve many last minute closing issues which often arise, such as title issues, hold-backs, and indemnifications. Closings will become more inefficient and mistake prone.

This is, after all, the largest single purchase in most people’s lives. It’s not the time for do it yourself (DIY).

For more information about the unauthorized practice of law issue, please visit the REBA website.

{ 4 comments }