In the Matter of Gregory Daniel Trimarche

Review Department (2025) 6 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 145

Overview

This published decision addresses attorney discipline arising from a nationwide student loan “debt relief” operation that collected approximately $11.8 million in advance fees from roughly 2,600 clients over a five-year period.

The Review Department affirmed findings that Trimarche:

• Failed to support the law by violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR)
• Substantially assisted others in violating the TSR
• Improperly solicited clients through nationwide telemarketing
• Assisted in unauthorized practice of law (UPL)
• Committed acts of moral turpitude under Business & Professions Code § 6106

The court upheld a recommendation of two years’ suspension, stayed, with two years of probation and one year of actual suspension.

Charges

Count One – Failure to Support the Law (§ 6068(a))

Violation of the TSR advance fee ban by collecting legal fees before altering clients’ debts and before clients made payments on altered obligations.

Count Two – Assisting Others in Violating the TSR

Substantial assistance to attorneys and entities engaged in unlawful advance fee collection.

Count Three – Violations Through Others (Rule 8.4(a))

• Improper solicitation (Rule 7.3(a))
• False or misleading communications (Rule 7.1(a))
• Unauthorized practice of law (Rule 5.5(a))

Count Four – Moral Turpitude (§ 6106)

Intentional participation in a business model that knowingly violated federal law, ethical rules, and concealed material information from clients.

Factual Background

Between 2015 and 2020, Trimarche co-founded GST Factoring, Inc., which coordinated a multi-entity debt relief structure involving:

• Telemarketing affiliates soliciting borrowers nationwide
• Out-of-state “Debt Attorneys” providing loan negotiation services
• A centralized system collecting monthly legal fees

Clients were charged monthly fees—often 40% of their outstanding loan balances— before any debt was renegotiated.

GST retained approximately 40% of collected payments, while attorneys received 10–20%.

Despite repeated warnings from:

• Affiliates
• A paralegal
• State Bar investigations
• CFPB inquiries

Trimarche failed to meaningfully investigate or modify the operation.

Respondent’s Defenses

1. Good Faith Belief the TSR Did Not Apply

Trimarche argued that:

• His business did not engage in “telemarketing”
• Inbound calls were exempt from TSR regulation
• Debt Attorneys provided legal services, not “debt relief services”
• He relied on counsel and industry interpretation

The court rejected this argument, finding:

• He was repeatedly alerted to TSR concerns
• He consciously avoided reviewing the rule
• His interpretation ignored the plain language of federal regulations

2. Good Faith Belief Regarding UPL

He claimed attorneys could provide federal legal advice nationwide.

The court found he conducted no meaningful jurisdiction-specific analysis and consciously avoided confirming compliance with state licensing rules.

3. Prejudice Due to Delay

He argued that the State Bar’s delay in filing charges prejudiced his defense. The court rejected this claim, finding no specific or actual prejudice.

Judicial Reasoning

Willful Blindness

The court applied the doctrine that willful blindness is equivalent to actual knowledge. Repeated exposure to regulatory warnings made ignorance unreasonable.

Plain Language of the TSR Controls

The business model fell squarely within the TSR definition of telemarketing and debt relief services. Outsourcing solicitation did not shield the enterprise from compliance.

Moral Turpitude

The court emphasized that intentional concealment of fee allocation and continued fee collection after regulatory warnings demonstrated dishonesty.

Collecting $11.8 million under a knowingly unlawful structure rose to moral turpitude.

Aggravation

Mitigation

Sanctions

Why This Published Decision Is Significant

This opinion was certified for publication and therefore carries precedential weight. It is significant because it:

• Clarifies that willful blindness to federal consumer protection laws supports moral turpitude findings
• Confirms that attorneys cannot avoid TSR compliance by structuring operations through affiliates
• Establishes that large-scale fee-splitting models disguised as legal services invite discipline
• Reinforces that multi-state virtual practices must analyze UPL exposure carefully
• Demonstrates that ignorance of regulatory law is not a defense where red flags exist

The decision provides guidance for attorneys participating in national consumer service models, particularly in debt settlement and telemarketing contexts.

Key Takeaways for Attorneys

• Willful blindness equals knowledge in disciplinary proceedings.
• Advance fee bans are strictly enforced.
• Fee-splitting structures must be fully disclosed and compliant.
• UPL analysis requires jurisdiction-specific diligence.
• High-volume consumer models carry heightened regulatory risk.