Exposure to liability?  Seems a bit of a stretch to me.  Presenting factual information regarding work requested, work performed, proof of the transaction closing and nonpayment from the client is simply proper business practice.  I think the suggestion to the lender not to do business with the client hardly falls into the tortious interference status. 

Sounds like the client who is improperly holding onto funds in connection with a real estate transaction should be on the defensive...not the examiner exposing that point.