Drawing on extensive courtroom experience and advisory work for financial services clients, Atlas | Solomon’s Natalie L. Winslow explains what today’s conditions mean across the mortgage ecosystem. Winslow is a founding partner based out of Atlas | Solomon’s Nevada office. She focuses her practice on civil litigation, bankruptcy, consumer finance law, and regulatory compliance.
Winslow has successfully represented institutional clients at all stages of litigation, including disputes related to consumer protection, real property, contracts, and banking and finance. She regularly provides guidance to financial services clients on executing federal and state legal requirements, sector benchmarks, and optimal business practices. Winslow has tried more than 25 bench and jury trials in both state and federal courts. She has
appeared and argued multiple times before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. Prior to joining Atlas Solomon, Winslow worked as a financial services litigation partner at an AMLaw 100 firm.
Q: What initially drew you to the legal side of mortgage servicing and foreclosure law?
Winslow: We were drawn to mortgage servicing and foreclosure law because it combines complex legal challenges with real-world impact. The work requires navigating evolving regulations, multistate compliance, and borrower rights, all while helping clients protect their portfolios and make sound business decisions.
What excites us most is the opportunity to solve complex legal and operational challenges, develop robust processes for our clients, and deliver solutions that benefit both servicers and borrowers.
Q: What do you think sets your firm apart in this space?
The founding partners for the Florida, Nevada, Texas, California, and New York offices spent more than a decade working side by side at a national law firm representing banks, mortgage servicers, and investors in complex default servicing matters. We didn’t just practice in this space—we helped build and manage a large-scale portfolio, navigate shifting regulatory frameworks, and defend high-stakes litigation during some of the most volatile periods in the industry. That shared history matters. We approach every file with a common philosophy Drawing on extensive courtroom experience and advisory work for financial services clients, across the mortgage ecosystem and a level of coordination that can only come from years of working together as a team. In short, we offer the sophistication, experience, and strategic insight of a national firm, paired with the responsiveness, efficiency, and cost discipline of a boutique practice.
Q: How has the foreclosure and default landscape evolved over the past year?
Over the past year, we have seen:
- Rising pro se litigation, with more self-represented borrowers filing lawsuits that have strained industry and court resources.
- Heightened regulatory scrutiny as federal and state agencies continue to refine loss mitigation and foreclosure compliance standards.
- Increased multistate complexity, with varying timelines, notice requirements, and statutory obligations across jurisdictions.
- Industrywide emphasis on technology, as servicers adopt automated systems for notices, tracking, and borrower communications.
These trends highlight the need for proactive legal guidance and operational oversight so that servicers can stay ahead of risk, maintain compliance, and manage defaults efficiently while simultaneously protecting borrower relationships.
Q: What are some of the most significant legal challenges servicers are facing right now?
One of the most notable developments is the marked increase in pro se borrower litigation. The growing frequency of pro se borrower litigation has meaningful operational, financial, and strategic implications for loan servicers. Even when a complaint lacks merit, servicers must generally retain counsel, file responsive pleadings, attend hearings, and sometimes pursue dismissal through motion practice or appeal. Because pro se pleadings are often broad, repetitive, or procedurally improper, they can require more time to analyze and address than cases where parties are represented by counsel. The result is higher per-file defense costs and greater strain on litigation budgets. Additionally, even where cases are dismissed quickly, they can delay foreclosure timelines, extend carrying costs, and impact investor reporting metrics.
Q: How have recent regulatory changes or policy updates impacted your clients and your work?
Several states have enacted or expanded statutes that impose additional procedural requirements on servicers, whether related to the timing of foreclosure referrals, borrower and non-borrower notification protocols, or loss mitigation duties. These laws, which often contain private rights of action and penalties, have increased the legal risk of non-compliance. For servicers, this means investing more in state-specific compliance frameworks, and for us, it requires deeper expertise in localized statutes and rules to defend and advise effectively.
Q: With timelines and regulations varying so much between states, how do you help clients navigate multistate compliance?
We work with our clients to implement centralized policies and workflows that accommodate state-specific variations. By mapping differences in timelines, notice requirements, and statutory duties, we create scalable, repeatable processes that reduce risk and streamline operations while still respecting each jurisdiction’s legal nuances. In short, our approach turns the complexity of multistate servicing into a manageable framework at the local level. Clients benefit from a combination of localized expertise, centralized oversight, and proactive legal strategy, which ensures that their operations remain efficient, compliant, and resilient across all jurisdictions.
Q: What advice would you give servicers to help them be more proactive rather than reactive in legal matters?
Litigation frequently arises from good-faith misunderstandings or miscommunications between borrowers and front-line servicing personnel. Beyond call audits and other training and compliance initiatives, servicers can further mitigate litigation risk by proactively addressing borrower communications. One effective approach is to foster structured opportunities for front-line employees to engage with in-house legal teams or outside counsel regarding the legal implications of their borrower-facing responsibilities, using practical, real-world examples and concrete risk-mitigation strategies. Our firm provides customized educational and training seminars—offered both virtually and in person—to servicing clients on a range of issues identified as presenting heightened legal exposure.
