1/28/2024 Update: An individual I spoke with signed up with Level One Law via Strategic Financial Solutions via a notary service after getting a bait and switch debt consolidation mailer.

As if 1/19/2024, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau sued Strategic Financial Solutions for $100,000,000 for illegally swindling consumers by collecting fees but offering little relief.

Have you experienced Strategic Financial Solutions? If so, please call me at (904) 590-5251 as I’d like to discuss with you about your options.

I just finished an article covering Strategic Consulting, and one thing that caught my eye when searching Google was that the 3rd search term suggested by Google was “Strategic Consulting lawsuit” (picture below).

So, that piqued my interested, and the purpose of this article is to summarize what I found in the lawsuit. If interested, this is the complaint case text that you can read for yourself. There are two things I’d like you to understand:

1. The complaint summarized are allegations, and may not be fact. It may be important to understand that when reading lawsuits because the lawsuit is still in progress, and no determination has been made.
2. This is my summary of the case text, so if helpful, you may want to read the actual case text yourself.

Now, if you are struggling with making payments on your debt and wondering what to do next, we built a free, unbiased debt options comparison calculator (not even an email address is required) that provides a wide range of debt options that may be able to fit your budget. The data is personalized to your income and expenses, so you can get accurate costs, pros and cons, and options.

The Complaint

Here’s some of the nature of the action from the complaint against Strategic Financial Solutions (SFS) (i.e. Stategic Consulting’s parent company) and Versara Funding.

1. SFS is allegedly a central actor that includes lawyers and law firms that bill services for debt relief consultants, but may not do very much negotiating. In addition, the complaint alleges that SFS clients charge more than what is permissible under state statutes for debt relief services.
2. The complaint alleges that SFS uses fictional intermediaries to locate debtors and offer services to entice them and then recruit lawyeres or law firms to act as client interfaces without dislosing SFS’s role and then controls the relationship with the client.
3. In addition, the complaint alleges that SFS created a network of attorneys to form affiliate firms, but SFS supposedly pays for the onboarding and process. The complaint alleges that SFS takes a majority of the up front and monthly fees deducted, which it states is both fee sharing with non lawyers in addition to improper handling of client funds.
4. The complaint alleges that SFS recruits clients through entities purporting debt consolidation lenders, but that clients are encouraged to sign up for debt relief representation instead.
5. When drafting the retainer agreement, the complaint alleges that the retainer agreement has the Affiliate law firm and does not identify SFS.
6. The lawsuit further alleges that SFS goes to lengths to conceal its identity and involvement in the process.
7. In addition, the complaint alleges that all calls to affiliate firms are routed to an SFS call center and that the affiliate law firms have no further responsibilities unless a client is sued by a creditor.

Finally, the complaint part alleges that the scheme is deceptive, and that the client does not know that SFS gets a share of fees they pay.

Parties Involved

The parties includes is Julia Briggs who is the plaintiff, and that she went through the process, and signed up with Monarch Legal Group.

It states that the lawsuit is against the following entities:

1. Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC

2. Versara Lending, LLC (owed by SFS)

3. John Doe 1-100

Background

The background of the lawsuit states that the CEO of SFS was the head of client support for Chicago-based Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, which the attorney genera in Illinois sued, and that two lawyers may have been disbarred as a result. In addition Legal Helpers Debt Resolution closed its doors.

The lawsuit alleges that the SFS CEO did not get disciplinary rules against him because he was not an attorney, and that the major difference between SFS and Legal Helpers is that Legal Helpers subcontracted work to non-lawyers, but SFS does that with non-employee attorneys.

Julia’s Brigg’s Experience with Monarch

The lawsuit alleges that Julia had only one intereaction with the attorney, and that she had paid Monarch Legal Group approximately $8,847.98, minus approximate $3,666.78 that was refunded to her as settlement reserves. In addition, the lawsuit states that Monarch only settled one account for Briggs in the amount of $544 for a total amount of $302.

It does state that all of the creditors did receive correspondence that she was represented by Monarch, but when Briggs was sued on July 12, 2021 for $12,518.56, the lawsuit alleges that no attorney represented her to file an answer to the lawsuit, and that when she terminated the agreement in November, 2021, that the Plaintiff was only refunded amount held in her trust, not not other fees charged.

So, the lawsuit alleges that Briggs would have only paid $86.23 in fees if it was with a non-attorney, debt settlement business.

Editor note: From my calculations, the estimated $86.23 paid in fees would be based on Brigg’s $502 settlement. If the information is true, I estimate that she paid an estimated $5181.20 ($8,847.98-$3,666.78) in fees instead of the $86.23 based on the legal structure set forth.

The lawsuit alleges that the representation agreement that potential clients sign includes language that waives the right to sue on a class wide basis as well as requiring of arbitration of any claims against the affiliate firms, but the Plaintiff states that the agreement was never countersigned by the affiliate firm, Monarch Legal Group.

How The Defendent’s Scheme Allegedly Works

From section 64. to 116, the lawsuit alleges how the process actually works. The basis is from a confidential source labeled CI1 that talks about how the affiliate firms are recruited, how much is paid approximately to the affiliate law firms, how the payments are processed, and the different websites involved. It also addresses how a new entity is formed to send out the debt consolidation mailers.

The lawsuit alleges that these entities send out the debt consolidation mailers.

Alleged Debt consolidation mailers from:

• Polo Funding
• Braidwood Capital
• Dune Ventures
• Tiffany Funding
• Nickel Advisors
• Hornet Partners
• Coral Funding
• Polk Partners
• Corey Advisors
• Pennon Partners
• Cobalt Advisors
• Colony Associates
• Glider Lending
• Ladder Advisors
• Jayhawk Advisors
• Great Lake Associates
• Pine Advisors
• Alamo Associates
• Punch Associates
• White Mountain Partners
• Steele Advisors
• Grand Canyon Advisors
• Glider Lending
• Lucky Marketing
• Golden State Partners
• Derby Advisors
• Graylock Advisors
• Tuck Associates
• Punch Associates
• Keel Associates
• Ballast Associates
• Tweed Lending
• Concourse Lending
• Graphite Funding
• August Funding
• Broadstar Financial
• Salvation Funding
• Stallion Lending
• Pebblestone Financial
• Sussex Funding
• Lafayette Funding
• Guardian Angel Funding
• Bridgeline Funding

The lawsuit further alleges that these are the law firm affiliate entities that individuals actually sign up with via Strategic Financial Solutions.

Alleged Affiliate Law Firms

• Burnette Legal Group (Monarch Legal Group)
• A. Florio & Associates PLLC d/b/a Bedrock Legal
• Anchor Law Firm PLLC
• Boulder Legal Group, LLC
• Canyon Legal Group, LLC
• Carolina Legal Services
• Chinn Legal Group, LLC d/b/a Slate Legal Group
• Colonial Law Group, LLC
• The Commonwealth Law Group, PLLC
• Credit Advocates Law Firm, LLC
• Donald Norris Associates PLLC d/b/a Stonepoint Legal Group
• Frontier Consumer Law Group
• Gardner Legal, LLC d/b/a Option 1 Legal
• Great Lakes Law Firm, LLC; Golden Law LLP
• Hailstone Legal Group, LLC; Harbor Legal Group, LLC
• Heiser Legal Group LLC d/b/a Glacier Bay Law
• Henry Legal Group, LLP d/b/a Heartland Legal Group
• Hinds Law, LLC d/b/a First America Law LLC
• The Law Offices of Arne Skatrud & Associates d/b/a The Cornerstone Legal Group LLC
• Newport Legal Group; Northstar Legal Group LLC
• Phoenix Legal Group, PLLC
• Pioneer Law Firm, P.C.
• Rockwell Legal Group
• Royal Legal Group, LLC
• Strong Law Group, LLC
• The Sands Law Group, LLC d/b/a Whitestone Legal Group
• Spring Law Group
• Stevens & Associates PLLC d/b/a Regency Legal Group
• Watson Law LLC d/b/a Corporate Legal Network LLC
• Wyolaw, LLC

Demand

In the demand on page 50, the Plaintiff request a trial by jury, and aware damages, and expenses related to the suit, and restitution and that all contracts between the Plaintiff and the Class are null and void.

The Lawsuit is In Progress

As of May 31, 2023, the lawsuit appears to be in progress but both Strategic Financial Solutions, LLC and Versara Lending, LLC are both requesting that the case be dismissed.

When researching the case dismissal request reasoning, it appears that both Strategic Financial Solutions is basically saying that the entity is a holding company of Monarch, and that Monarch is not even labeled as a defendant in this case. In addition, there may be reasoning why Briggs did not mention them in the lawsuit.

Take Our Free Debt Options Calculator

If you have debt that needs to be resolve, we built the free debt relief options calculator below for you. It’s 100% free and doesn’t require an email address unless you’d like an additional review.