When Congress passed the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) it stated that its purpose is “to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors[.]” Congress cited the need for consumer protection because of the “abundant evidence of the use of abusive, deceptive, and unfair debt collection practices by many debt collectors. Abusive debt collection practices contribute to the number of personal bankruptcies, to marital instability, to the loss of jobs, and to invasions of individual privacy.”
Abusive debt collection practices are just bad news.
On February 22, 2010, the United States Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on a FDCPA case: Kay v. Gonzales, U.S., No. 09-542. In that case the Plaintiff, Jose Gonzalez, received a letter from the Kay Law Firm. The letter, written on law firm letterhead and unsigned, told Gonzalez, “Please be advised that your account, as referenced above, is being handled by this office.” On the back of the letter was this statement: “At this point in time, no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of your account.” Gonzalez sued the Kay Law Firm for violating the FDCPA which prohibits debt collectors from falsely representing or implying that the debt collector is an attorney or that the communication is from an attorney.
The federal district court found that the disclaimer was sufficient to notify Gonzalez that the collection matter was not being handled by an attorney and the Gonzalez’s case was dismissed. On appeal the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that the letter’s disclaimer on the back was mixed in with “legalese” which may not be sufficient to notify the consumer of the attorney’s non-involvement in the case. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court dismissal and remanded the case for trial. Gonzalez v. Kay, No. 08-20544 (5th Cir., 2009). Now that the Supreme Court has denied the Kay Law Firm’s appeal, Mr. Gonzalez will have his day in court.
The Fifth Circuit in its opinion cites the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals for why it is important to protect against this type of deceptive collection practice:
“An unsophisticated consumer, getting a letter from an ‘attorney,’ knows the price of poker has just gone up. And that clearly is the reason why the dunning campaign escalates from the collection agency, which might not strike fear in the heart of the consumer, to the attorney, who is better positioned to get the debtor’s knees knocking.”
Avila v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222, 229 (7th Cir. 1996).
If you receive a collection letter from a law firm, speak to an experienced bankruptcy attorney and learn your rights. Bankruptcy attorneys are trained in matters of debt defense and can help explain your rights under the FDCPA and the federal bankruptcy laws. Don’t let an unscrupulous debt collector get your “knees knocking.”