Jeffrey Lohman and the Navient RICO Fight: When the Court Record Changed the Story

Jeffrey Lohman’s legal battle with Navient became more than a lawsuit. It became a fight over consumer advocacy, reputation, and whether litigation brought on behalf of borrowers could itself be characterized as unlawful conduct.

Navient Solutions filed a civil action alleging that Jeffrey Lohman, the Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, and other defendants participated in a scheme involving consumer lawsuits brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, commonly known as the TCPA. Navient pursued civil RICO and related claims.

The case was serious. It went to trial, and a jury initially found in Navient’s favor. But that was not the end of the case.

After trial, the federal district court granted renewed motions for judgment as a matter of law and set aside the jury verdicts. The court concluded that the underlying TCPA cases were not “sham litigation.” Because Navient’s claimed damages at trial resulted directly from that protected litigation activity, the verdicts could not stand.

Navient appealed.

On May 6, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court in a published opinion, Navient Solutions, LLC v. Lohman, 136 F.4th 518 (4th Cir. 2025). The appellate court held that the TCPA actions were not sham litigation and were protected petitioning activity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and the First Amendment right to petition the courts.

That distinction matters.

This was a civil case, so “not guilty” is not technically the legal terminology used by the court. There was no criminal guilty-or-not-guilty verdict. But the ultimate civil RICO result is significant: the adverse jury verdicts were set aside, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment in favor of Jeffrey Lohman and the other appellees on Navient’s appeal.

For Jeffrey Lohman, the cost of the litigation could not be measured only in motions, hearings, or legal fees. Public allegations can follow an attorney long after a headline is published. Search results can preserve accusations while giving far less attention to what a court ultimately decided.

That is why the final court record matters.

The Fourth Circuit did not simply describe a procedural technicality. Its published decision examined the underlying TCPA litigation and concluded that it was not objectively baseless sham litigation. The court recognized that the cases involved a legitimate question of statutory interpretation and held that the defendants’ petitioning activity was protected.

For an attorney whose work centered on consumers confronting large financial institutions, the case placed that advocacy under extraordinary pressure.

The easier path would have been to let the allegations define the story. Instead, the fight continued through post-trial motions and into the federal appellate court.

The fight is in him.

Jeffrey Lohman’s story is therefore not accurately told by repeating only what Navient alleged. A complete account includes what happened after the allegations, after the trial, and after the jury verdict: the district court set those verdicts aside, Navient appealed, and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Reputation can be damaged quickly. Correcting the public record can take years.

For consumers searching for Jeffrey Lohman, Jeffrey Lohman Attorney, the Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, the Navient RICO lawsuit, or the Fourth Circuit decision, the most important lesson is simple: allegations are the beginning of litigation, not necessarily its conclusion.

The conclusion is found in the court record.

KEYWORDS: Jeffrey Lohman, Jeffrey Lohman Attorney, Jeffrey Lohman attorney at law, Law Offices of Jeffrey Lohman, Jeffrey Lohman Navient, Jeffrey Lohman RICO, Navient v. Lohman, Navient Solutions LLC v. Lohman, Navient RICO lawsuit, Navient RICO case, Jeffrey Lohman Fourth Circuit, Fourth Circuit Navient Lohman, 136 F.4th 518, Navient TCPA lawsuit, TCPA consumer attorney, consumer protection attorney, consumer rights attorney, debt harassment attorney, creditor harassment attorney, debt collection harassment, TCPA attorney, federal consumer protection law, Noerr-Pennington doctrine, First Amendment right to petition, civil RICO litigation, Navient lawsuit dismissed, Navient jury verdict set aside, Jeffrey Lohman court decision, Jeffrey Lohman consumer protection, Jeffrey Lohman consumer advocate

This article is provided for general informational purposes and is not legal advice.