Clark v. Pollard

This folder examines the all-too-frequent problem where collectors pretend to be lawyers or imply that they can do things that only a lawyer can do. The folder also examines instances where the collector threatens to do things which it cannot lawfully do.
Post Reply
David A. Szwak
Posts: 1974
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:19 pm

Clark v. Pollard

Post by David A. Szwak »

Clark v. Pollard
Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2000 WL 1902183
S.D.Ind.,2000.
December 28, 2000

The parties' arguments on the Rooker Feldman doctrine and the unauthorized practice of law raise on the legal horizon some potentially challenging problems concerning the relationship between state and federal courts, and between the FDCPA and state law concerning debt collection, especially with respect to procedures used in and approved by state courts. Compare, e.g., Poirier v. Alco Collections, Inc., 107 F.3d 347, 350-51 (5th Cir.1997) (finding FDCPA violation where debt collector violated state law on unauthorized practice of law), with Higgins v. Capitol Credit Services, Inc., 762 F.Supp. 1128, 1136-38 (D.Del.1991) (finding no FDCPA violation where state law did not clearly prohibit debt collector's practices in state court). However, the particulars of this case do not require exhaustive consideration of those issues.
Clark has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the FDCPA. Clark relies on the provision of the FDCPA that bars a debt collector from using a “threat to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken.â€
Post Reply

Return to “Unauthorized Practice of Law: Debt Collectors Pretending to be Lawyers or Implying That They Act Like Lawyers”