A Real Problem For One Democratic Candidate

Morgan McGarvey’s fellow Democratic opponents in the 19th District State Senate race keep urging us to discuss his background. Unfortunately, none of them have the guts to speak up about it. They’re terrified of the establishment. And that leads us to believe they’re no more fit to serve in public office than McGarvey.

That said… let’s take a look at McGarvey’s real world problem.

You’re familiar with writ of possession/writ of eviction, right? The process where a bank goes to court for an order instructing the sheriff to forcibly evict people from their home within 24 hours? Even if the person is elderly or a family member is deathly ill or pregnant? Sure you are. You can Google it if you’re not.

You’re probably also familiar with the reality that the big banks that were investigated for mortgage fraud – and subsequently settled with the Department of Justice with the blessing of Jack Conway (McGarvey’s former boss) – are the very banks McGarvey’s law firm represents. Writ of possession is even a service his law firm promotes on its website:

Some of his firms big Wall Street clients that utilized writ of possession – often illegally and in instances of robosigning?

  • Chase
  • Bank of America
  • CitiFinancial

Here it is on his site:

Just to name a few.

It’s a practice that has cost not only hard working families without the ability to pay a lawyer their homes, it’s directly impacted thousands of Louisvillians and Kentuckians.

It’s a practice many of those big banks continue to rely on as they’re continually investigated for mortgage fraud.

Unfortunately for McGarvey, he can’t say his salary paid by the firm never included funds derived from the practice. So just roll your eyes when he and his folks foam at the mouth about it in reaction.

It’s a real shame the Courier-Journal editorial board ignored this reality when the group gave him preferential treatment during a recent interview of the candidates. Gary Demling, Sarah Lynn Cunningham and Amy Shoemaker were repeatedly cut off while McGarvey was allowed to speak at length. Strangely, none of them were allowed to follow-up on what McGarvey had to say.

It’s also a real shame his opponents don’t have the drive to really differentiate themselves from the establishment by discussing issues like this.

And you wonder why Kentucky can’t have nice things.

6 thoughts on “A Real Problem For One Democratic Candidate

  1. If any of the lenders that Morgan & Pottinger represent have committed wrongdoing with regard to the mortgages they ask the firm to enforce, those are the lenders’ misdeeds, not the law firms’. If all attorneys were saddled with the sins of their clients, the profession would have collapsed years ago. To question a candidate’s credibility or future positions based upon past actions and affiliations is legitimate, but to insinuate that a candidate is inherently bad because of who they represent in court is the type of reckless journalism and logical fallacy that I would not have expected from you.

  2. Oh, please. You of all people should know better.

    Don’t act for a second that profiting from the foreclosure crisis isn’t legitimate gossip fodder during a political campaign.

    You don’t get to have your cake and eat it, too. Not when you run for office.

    The shit is right there in front of your eyes. You can read it for yourself. His firm represents the very companies responsible for the mortgage crisis in this country. His firm advertises – lawyer sites in Kentucky are considered advertisements – for the very service that’s caused so much strife.

    Save your concern trolling.

  3. Based on your argument, any candidate for office who ever represented a murderer should be questioned because of the actions of his clients.

    Advertisements aside, lawyers are required to uphold the law. There are to sides to every case, which means that one is on the “good” and the other is on the “bad”. Their requirement is that they provide the best legal representation possible, not that they endorse the action of their clients.

    If we followed your logic, I don’t believe we would have anybody eligible to run for office.

  4. When an attorney represents a murderer, they do so because everyone deserves equal representation.

    When an attorney readily advertises a service – along with the names of their big clients – in an attempt to get more revenue from that service? And that service and those clients were part of one of the largest economic disasters in world history? Haha, yeah, that’s the same thing as representing someone – a human – who deserves equal representation.

    Or maybe it’s just a continued disregard for values they profess to hold.

    Last time I checked? Corporations are not people. That’s not a Democratic principle.

    BUT – if an accused murderer is found guilty and an attorney willfully lies for that murderer while knowing what they’re saying and doing is both dishonest, shady and just wrong? Then, yes, the same logic applies.

    Not all foreclosures are bogus. But let’s not sit here while a bunch of Morgan’s friends (you) anonymously feign outrage while pretending the mortgage crisis is something you can brush off.

    Morgan’s situation isn’t helped much because he also worked for Jack Conway in an office that also pushed for a settlement that let these Wall Street crooks off the hook. And Conway being a candidate who has pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from these folks.

  5. Further, Morgan says he’s a change agent. Someone who will be different in Frankfort. Someone who won’t further the status quo.

    So let’s take a look at where his money is coming from and who he constantly touts:

    • Ben Chandler (he held his largest fundraiser)
    • Jack Conway
    • Crit Luallen
    • Adam Edelen
    • Mike Ward
    • Lindy Casebier and his handful of gays in Louisville
    • Beshear appointees
    • Tommy Elliott
    • Jessica Loving
    • Jim Cauley
    • John Schnatter
    • Chris Sternberg
    • Babbage
    • McBrayer
    • Charlie Moore
    • Jennifer Moore
    • Jonathan Miller and his disciples

    That’s a real change agent. Someone who isn’t borne of the inside and the establishment. Definitely not more of the same.


    Additionally, his campaign, according to his April report, has spent more than $17,000. And he didn’t bother providing itemized disbursement data. That’s some real transparency from a candidate who says all the time – and via surrogates – that transparency is wholly necessary in politics and in Frankfort.

  6. I know that Morgan’s a smart nice young man who has apparently “paid his dues” working on the campaigns of some leading Democrats – but building your law practice with a debt collection firm, in my mind, communicates a lot about your values. When I was an attorney at the Legal Aid Society doing consumer law, it was Morgan & Pottinger and the Mapother firm who represented the most aggressive lenders and filed the most debt collection/foreclosure suits against my low-income clients — and who fought my clients’ efforts to keep their homes in bankruptcy.

    Jessica is right that attorneys should not be saddled with all of the sins of their clients — but the kind of law practice you choose to pursue and the firm you choose to associate yourself with says a lot about who you are. How else are we to judge the values of an attorney running for office?

    Moreover, the Senate position is not a full-time job, so I assume Morgan will continue his law practice if elected to office. Do we want a senator whose law firm makes money collecting debts for large financial institutions?

Comments are closed.