Lenders participating in the U.S. Small Business Administration lending programs often encounter borrowers who are unrepresented by legal counsel for the loan transaction. As a result, borrowers try to rely on the loan closer, business development officer, and frequently lender’s closing counsel for guidance on due diligence items such as the EPC/OC lease, compliance with bulk sales requirements, entity formation issues, and terms of the purchase agreement. In these situations, the question then arises, what is the appropriate response for lender and its counsel?
State laws on the unauthorized practice of law are broad and diverse, and the actions that would give rise to claims of the unauthorized practice of law depend on the jurisdiction. For lenders, the actions which may give rise to a potential claim of the unauthorized practice of law are often asserted in the form of a lender liability claim. Lenders must develop clear policies and procedures with all SBA personnel to avoid assuming an advisory role and inadvertently establishing a fiduciary relationship, which the borrower may rely upon and subsequently sustain damages as a result of the advice, or, any legal documents provided. There is a fine line between counseling a borrower on SBA rules and requirements related to legal due diligence, and providing “legal advice” by supplying the borrower with sample legal documents to satisfy needs list items.
Borrowers and guarantors may allege negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, tortious interference, fraud and other breach of contract or tort claims in order to avoid responsibility for the loan. Lender liability may arise at any point of the loan process: origination, closing, funding or servicing. Did the lender abide by the terms of the executed commitment letter? Do the loan documents incorporate the terms of the loan as negotiated between the parties? Did the lender make a material representation regarding the status of the loan that the borrower acted upon to its detriment?
Below are suggested practices to avoid the unauthorized practice of law and potential lender liability claims:
Ultimately, when the loan defaults, and lenders are pursuing all available remedies, borrowers are also examining all possible defenses to the lender’s enforcement actions. By implementing and enforcing policies that provide best practices in communicating with the borrower, lenders will mitigate their risk of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law and the resulting potential lender liability claims.
For more information regarding mitigating lender liability risk, please contact Jen at jborra@starfieldsmith.com or at 267.470.1206.
At Starfield & Smith, we are pleased to announce a new internal initiative dedicated to…
Determining next steps when dealing with an SBA Borrower that is in payment default can…
Artificial intelligence is already helping commercial lenders streamline intake, review financial information, detect fraud, summarize…
When underwriting or discussing a loan where Maryland real property is collateral, a lender must…
As artificial intelligence tools become increasingly accessible, lenders are facing a new and evolving risk…
On February 6, 2026, SBA issued Procedural Notice 5000-875051 7(a) Alternative Base Rate Options (the…