CONTINUED: LAWYERS DON'T NEED NEW TOOLS TO COLLECT DEBT: GUEST COMMENTARY

CONTINUED

Currently, federal law prevents a variety of unfair debt collection practices.
This includes debt collection activity during a lawsuit or collection of a legal
judgment. That law is called the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, or
FDCPA, and it was last amended in 2010.

This proposed technical clarification bill would end all that. It would carve out
an exception from the FDCPA for debt collection lawyers engaged in certain
"litigation activity." In other words, lawyers who break the FDCPA while suing
consumers wouldn't get penalized.

In a double whammy, this bill would also eliminate the power of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau to regulate lawyers in certain legal proceedings.
That bureau is America's "cop on the beat" for consumers. Essentially, this
bill would ban the bureau from investigating litigation abuse, when consumers
need help in courts now more than ever.

In the past decade, * there has been an explosion of debt collection litigation.
In that same period, FDCPA claims by consumers have increased. It's no
accident that more rules get broken as more debt lawsuits are filed.

 COLLECTION LAWYERS WOULD HAVE FREE REIN IN
COURTHOUSES TO PURSUE CONSUMERS WITH NEAR
IMPUNITY.

The FDCPA is a good tool to punish and deter debt collection violations
that occur during debt collection lawsuits. But if this free pass for lawyers
becomes law, then the results seem clear. There will be more deception,
abuse, and confusion for the cash-strapped consumers who get sued on
old debts.

Being the dignified group that it is, one would think the American Bar
Association, or ABA, would support the FDCPA. After all, shouldn't the
existing law act as a bare minimum standard for lawyers?

Instead, the ABA supports this bill to carve out an exception for lawyers.
One can only conclude the ABA favors giving debt collection lawyers
immunity from laws that protect the public interest. How disappointing.

Proponents of the bill, including the ABA, emphasize that the FDCPA is a
burden for lawyers who are suing on debts. But the court system already
gives lawyers a huge built-in advantage.

Without limits from the FDCPA, collection lawyers would have free rein
in Courthouses throughout the country to pursue consumers with near
impunity.

Perhaps the ABA and : debt collection lawyers who support this idea
believe lawyers who use courts to collect debt are somehow different
from other debt collectors. This position reminds me of George Orwell's
classic tale, "Animal Farm.” On Animal Farm, "all animals are equal,
but some animals are more equal than others."

Napoleon the pig would be impressed by the doublespeak being used
here. The debt collection lobby has proposed a "technical clarification" to
create a “narrow exception" for lawyers in litigation. If you ask consumers
who are sued or garnished by debt collectors, that exception for lawyers
won't seem so narrow.

If we are being honest, three truths emerge:

a. Fair debt collection laws keep the debt collection system (including
the courts) balanced

 b. Collection lawyers aren't "more equal" than all other debt collectors

 c. Lawyers in general, don't need this free pass.

Terry Lawson is a consumer protection and debt defense
Attorney in Kansas City
He is also the current Missouri state chair of the Național
Association of Consumer Advocates.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)