By Andrew A. Turner, J.D.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Federal Trade Commission are supporting a consumer against a debt collection law firm's appeal of a decision in which a federal district court in New Jersey found that the firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it brought suit after only a four second-review of a case. The CFPB and FTC have filed an amici curiae brief in Bock. v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP (U.S. Court of Appeals, 3rd Cir.), arguing that the lack of meaningful attorney involvement violated the FDCPA in a state-court collection action brought after mostly automated review.
The case involves a debt-collection lawsuit over a defaulted credit card debt. Midland Funding, LLC, a large debt buyer, enlisted Pressler & Pressler, LLP, a law firm specializing in collecting consumer debts, to collect the debt on its behalf. While an attorney reviewed the complaint before filing, the firm’s computer records show that this scan lasted four seconds and that the attorney also reviewed 672 complaints that same day, and approved all but 10 of them. There was no other attorney review before the complaint was filed.
In the district court decision (Bock. v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, June 30, 2014), Judge Kevin McNulty said: “The process by which Pressler prepares complaints almost entirely involves automation and non-attorney personnel. There is nothing wrong with that; the FDCPA does not mandate drudgery or enshrine outmoded business methods. The state court complaint filed in the state action here, however, was reviewed by an attorney for approximately four seconds. The case law is sparse, and it is possible for reasonable people to disagree as to what constitutes reasonable attorney review. But whatever reasonable attorney review may be, a four-second scan is not it.”
For more information about debt collection issues, subscribe to the Banking and Finance Law Daily.
