Analysts Say Abbe Lowell’s Letter to DOJ Is Political Theater, Not a Legal Shield, as Letitia James Faces Mortgage Fraud and Campaign Finance Scrutiny
A high-profile letter from Democrat attorney Abbe Lowell to U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, defending New York Attorney General Letitia James from federal fraud allegations, is being widely criticized as a public relations stunt devoid of legal substance.
Lowell, best known for representing Hunter Biden and Senator Bob Menendez, sought to discredit a criminal referral filed by U.S. Federal Housing Director William Pulte, which accuses James of mortgage fraud, campaign finance violations, and false statements on official filings.
Yet legal experts argue Lowell’s April 24 letter fails to refute the core allegations and instead reads as a politically motivated smokescreen.
“Everyone knows those allegations are baseless,” James told a constituent recently—but critics say the evidence tells a different story.
1. Mortgage Fraud: Principal Residence Claim Contradicted by Signed Legal Documents
Lowell’s argument that a casual email from James disavowing a Virginia property as her “primary residence” overrides signed, notarized loan documents claiming the opposite is legally irrelevant, experts say.
“Courts prioritize official mortgage forms—not informal emails—when evaluating fraud,” said one mortgage law analyst. “Intentional misrepresentation on these documents is prosecutable.”
James’s power of attorney filings, signed under penalty of perjury, listed the Virginia home as her principal residence—a classification that determines interest rates, loan terms, and insurance coverage. Her email, sent before closing, carries no legal weight.
2. Brooklyn Brownstone Loan: Five Units, Not Four
James obtained a HAMP loan in 2011, designed for buildings with four or fewer units. But her Certificate of Occupancy lists five units, rendering her legally ineligible.
Lowell’s claim that the building only “functioned informally” as a four-unit property ignores the fact that legal eligibility is based on the C of O, not informal use.
Additionally, HPD classification records cited in the defense were submitted by James herself, raising further concerns of self-generated false documentation.
3. “Husband and Wife” Filing with Her Father
One of the more bizarre allegations: In 1983, James co-signed a mortgage with her father while falsely listing themselves as “husband and wife” to obtain joint borrowing benefits. That false status appeared again in property resale documents in 2000, after James had already become a licensed attorney.
“She had a legal duty to correct the record—especially in 2000 when she sold the property,” a federal mortgage investigator noted. “This isn’t a clerical error. It’s deception.”
4. Campaign Finance Red Flags: Missing from Lowell’s Letter
Most conspicuously, Lowell’s letter completely ignores one of the most damning allegations: that James’s 2013 Public Advocate campaign made illegal payments to New York Communities for Change, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit barred from direct campaign coordination.
James’s campaign allegedly paid NYCC over $3,400 for canvassing and staffing, which would be considered illegal in-kind contributions under both IRS and state laws if coordinated.
“The omission is telling,” said a nonprofit compliance attorney. “It means they have no defense.”
Conclusion: Legal Defense or Political Diversion?
Lowell’s letter, critics say, doesn’t defend Letitia James in a courtroom—it defends her in the media. But the law doesn’t yield to narrative spin.
If the case moves forward with a fair jury and real evidence, Letitia James could face the same legal fate as Lowell’s previous clients—including the indicted and disgraced Senator Bob Menendez.
“No one is above the law,” James often says. The coming months may determine if she still believes that applies to herself.
