It's good that they did self-report, ceased the robo-signing, worked with their clients and took corrective measures, and so forth.  I get that all of that should tend to argue for more lenient treatment.  I just am not sure I believe some parts of their story that the court believed.  Geesing said that he didn't sign the documents, but claims that he reviewed them all.  Is that credible?  First, since he was not signing, how can he say with any certainty that he reviewed all the documents that were signed?  Secondly, if he was too busy to sign these documents, do I really believe that he always took the time to carefully review them?