Use of Lawyer Name Must Signify Lawyer Involvement Under Act

[David A. Szwak]

Court Rules Use of Attorney Name Must Signify Attorney Involvement Under FDCPA.

On April 27, 2005, the United States District Court for Connecticut ruled in favor of a consumer who brought action against an attorney working in a law firm that specialized in consumer debt collections alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). The consumer received a collection letter bearing a facsimile copy of the defendant’s signature, as well as the defendant attorney’s name appearing in the return address field of the letter. The consumer sued the attorney for violating the FDCPA by making false and misleading representations that the letter was from the attorney, because the attorney had not reviewed the consumer’s account and had little any involvement in the process of sending the letter. In granting summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the judge in the case stated in part, “[A]t a minimum, the use of an attorney’s signature implies… that the attorney signing the letter formed an opinion about how to manage the case of the debtor to whom the letter was sent.â€

[David A. Szwak]

Debt Collection Letters Sent by Law Firms Without Attorney Review Violates the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

On May 10, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York held that law firms that send debt collection letters on behalf of debt collection agencies violate the FDCPA when those letters are automatically generated without individualized attorney review of the facts of the case. Reade-Alvarez v. Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C., No. 04-CV-2195-ILG (E.D.N.Y. 2005). The court found that sending form letters on firm letterhead to collect debts violated the FDCPA because it created an impression that attorneys had reviewed the matter and were familiar with the case, when in fact there had been no attorney review. The FDCPA requires “some degree of attorney involvementâ€