New York Law Journal:  “A law firm that mass-produced collection letters and litigation documents violated the federal debt collection act in a matter it filed a decade ago, a federal judge has ruled.  In August 2000, [the law firm] sued Arthur Miller, after he failed to respond to a letter . . . [that] gave Miller 30 days to contest a $1,678 balance he owed . . . . In finding the firm liable for violations of §1692(e) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, [the judge said] that the ‘attorney review practices prior to both the issuance of the debt-collection letter . . . and the commencement of legal action were inadequate for [FDCPA] purposes, thus rendering misleading these communications with Miller.’  The decision ‘digs a grave for attorneys’ who send letters and then file suit on behalf of debt buyers with ‘no information, no documents, and no meaningful attorney review,’ said Brian L. Bromberg of the Bromberg Law Office, who has represented Miller for the past eight years.”

Related posts:

  1. Judge delays decision on LifeLock’s alerts
  2. Treasury Inc. – The Shadow National Debt
  3. Judge Tosses Sheriff’s Suit Against Craigslist Over Prostitution Ads
  4. Settlement of Disputed Debt Does Not Result in Cancellation of Debt Income
  5. Can an Employee Be Liable Under Federal Wiretap Laws for Accessing an Email on a Company Laptop for Purposes Adverse to the Company?
  6. Federal Judge Releases Written Opinion on Red Flags Rule
  7. Judge Rules Military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy Unconstitutional
  8. Opening Letters From State Licensing Agencies
  9. Expect To Give A DNA Sample If You Get Arrested By The Feds
  10. Federal Appeals Court Demands DOJ Explain Obama’s “Judicial Activism” Comment