Overview

Attorney: Jack Chien-Long Huang Case Nos. 11-O-15502 et al.

The Review Department increased the hearing judge’s discipline from a six-month to a two-year actual suspension (continuing until restitution and rehabilitation are proven) after finding that attorney Huang aided and abetted the unauthorized practice of law, violated loan-modification laws, failed to competently perform, and failed to return client property and funds. Though he showed remorse and cooperation, the court held that the extent of client harm and multiple acts of misconduct warranted stronger discipline.

Factual Background

Admitted in 2006, Huang opened a high-volume loan-modification and bankruptcy practice (“Jack Law Group”) in Corona, California. He partnered with non-lawyers Robert Campoy and Andres Martinez—former operators of a lay loan-modification business called National Mitigation Services (NMS). Although he was warned by the District Attorney and State Bar to personally supervise the practice, Huang relied almost entirely on non-attorney employees to handle hundreds of files. Staff conducted intake interviews, promised results, collected fees up front, and negotiated with lenders without Huang’s oversight.

By 2011, Huang’s office had processed between 500 and 800 cases, collecting approximately $50,000 per month in fees. He visited only part-time while non-lawyer managers ran operations. When he attempted to close the office after discovering irregularities, employees locked him out and continued working under a new firm name (“MarCam Law Group”). Huang cooperated with authorities afterward and repaid most clients over time.

Findings of Misconduct

• Aiding and Abetting the Unauthorized Practice of Law (Rule 1-300(A)): Huang allowed non-lawyers to perform all legal services promised under his retainer agreements — client intake, advice, fee negotiation, document preparation, and lender negotiations — constituting UPL.
• Loan-Modification Violations (§ 6106.3 and Civ. Code §§ 2944.6–2944.7): Collected advance fees before services were performed and in some cases failed to give required statutory notice that a third party is not necessary to negotiate a loan modification.
• Failure to Perform Competently (Rule 3-110(A)): Neglected supervision and permitted staff to provide false information to clients (e.g., promised modifications that never existed).
• Failure to Return Client Property and Funds (Rules 3-700(D)(1), 4-100(B)(4)): Delayed return of client files and refunds for months or years.

Dismissed Charges

The court dismissed counts for moral turpitude (§ 6106), misuse of name (§ 6105), and failure to communicate (§ 6068(m)), finding insufficient evidence that Huang intended to mislead clients or that communication failures were willful after he was locked out of his office :contentReference[oaicite:0]{index=0}.

Aggravating Factors

• Multiple Acts of Misconduct: 28 violations across eight client matters.
• Client Harm: Clients lost money and homes while facing foreclosure because of poor supervision and false assurances :contentReference[oaicite:1]{index=1}.

Mitigating Factors

• No Prior Discipline: Three and a half years of discipline-free practice before misconduct.
• Cooperation and Candor: Stipulated to facts and assisted investigators once aware of the problem.
• Good Character and Remorse: Witnesses testified to his integrity and community involvement; Huang expressed sincere remorse and made substantial restitution.

Disciplinary Analysis

The court emphasized that discipline protects the public and legal profession, not to punish the attorney. Given Huang’s creation of a lay negotiation service run by non-lawyers, his misconduct resembled that in In the Matter of Jones (1993) 2 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 411 (two-year suspension for aiding UPL and incompetent supervision in hundreds of cases). The Review Department found the hearing judge’s six-month suspension too lenient and ordered a two-year actual suspension with continued probation until restitution and rehabilitation were proven :contentReference[oaicite:2]{index=2}.

Sanctions Table

Key Takeaways

• Attorneys must directly supervise non-lawyer staff and cannot delegate client representation tasks that constitute the practice of law.
• Collecting advance fees for loan-modification services violates Civil Code § 2944.7 and is disciplinable under Bus. & Prof. Code § 6106.3.
• Even without moral turpitude, systemic supervision failures that cause widespread client harm justify extended suspension.
• Mitigation such as restitution and remorse can lessen but not eliminate severe discipline when client loss is extensive.