An attorney running a collection agency may be liable as a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for sending a potentially deceptive collection letter, the 6th Circuit has ruled in reversing a summary judgment for the attorney.
The attorney was a sole practitioner with
The attorney sent out a mass-mailing collection letter printed on "Law Offices" letterhead but containing the contact information for the collection agency and a signature block noting it was from an "Account Representative" of the law office.
A debtor who received the letter sued, claiming it violated the Act
The attorney argued he hadn't even reviewed the letter and wasn't personally involved in sending it, so he could not be held liable as a "debt collector" under the Act.
The court disagreed.
"[The attorney] was 'regularly engaged, directly and indirectly, in the collection of debts.' ... [He] admitted in his deposition that he drafted the form letter that was sent to [the debtor], is one of only two attorneys at the law firm, is the only member of the LLC, and is the one who negotiates terms with the mailing service provider used in the debt-collection practice," the court said.
"Based on the foregoing, we conclude that [the attorney] is a 'debt collector' as a matter of law and thus subject to individual liability."
Further, the court found the collection letter could be deceptive under the Act: "[T]he question for the jury becomes whether one can reasonably conclude that the letter sent to [the debtor] is susceptible to a reading by the least sophisticated consumer that it is from an attorney, even though [the attorney] has admitted that he had no direct role in sending the letter."
The court cited a similar case from a U.S. District Court in Utah, as well as a contrary case from the 7th Circuit.
U.S. Court of Appeals, 6th Circuit. Kistner v. Law Offices of Michael Margelefsky, No. 07-3134. Feb. 26, 2008. Lawyers USA No. 9939347.
Credit: Lawyers USA Staff