What makes us different? The proof is in our results

We are proud to boast a staggering 99% success rate in having fraudulent student loans discharged and refunded. But don't just take our word for it. As a testament to our success, we have shared discharge letters from satisfied clients right here on our website. These letters are proof of our commitment and effectiveness in helping our clients shake off the weight of unfair student loans.

At Legal Touch Borrower Defense, our goal is to help you regain your financial freedom and put your past educational experiences behind you. We firmly believe in the power of education to open doors, not to burden you with lasting debt.

Are you ready to step towards financial liberation and leave behind the shackles of fraudulent student loans? Reach out to Legal Touch Borrower Defense today. We will handle the intricacies of Borrower Defense so you can focus on what truly matters - your future.

What type of practices constitute a fraudulent school?

Universities that were “for-profit” and engaged in deceptive practices that include but are not limited to:

1. Misrepresentation of Job Placement Rates: Schools accused of inflating job placement rates to attract students. They often include jobs that were not in the students' field of study, part-time jobs, or jobs that did not require a degree as successful placements.
2. High-Pressure Recruitment Tactics: Recruiters using aggressive strategies to enroll students, often focusing on those with little understanding of traditional college, such as first-generation students and students from low-income backgrounds.
3. Misleading Information about Accreditation: These universities often claim their programs are accredited, but they do not make it clear that their accreditation was not recognized by many traditional universities and some employers, making it difficult for students to transfer credits or use their degree in the job market.
4. Predatory Lending Practices: They often trap students in high-interest private student loans that many could not afford. In some cases, students were not fully informed about the terms of these loans.
5. Poor Educational Standards: Many students and faculty criticize these schools for providing subpar education, claiming that the courses lacked depth and rigor, and that the institute often prioritized profits over educational quality.