Judge Rules Against Collection Law Firm in FDCPA Voicemail Case

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

In a ruling that could have far-reaching impact on the collection practices of ARM law firms, a district court judge in New York recently allowed an FDCPA lawsuit to advance against a collection attorney over the language used in a pre-recorded voicemail message.

U.S. District Judge Carol Bagley Amon, the Chief Judge in the Eastern District of New York, denied the collection attorney’s motion to dismiss a case that argued the law firm was not allowed to identify itself as a “law office” without meaningful attorney involvement in the case.

In Bard v. Law Offices of Harold E. Scherr, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming damages under the FDCPA over a pre-recorded voicemail the law firm left in an attempt to collect a debt.

The message was as follows:

This message is for Hanna Bard; if you are not Hanna Bard, you should not listen to the rest of this message; this is the Law Office of Harold E. Scherr, a firm which engages in the collection of debt; please call me toll free at 8008588736.

Bard argued that the message was left “without conducting any meaningful review of the account.” Bard’s complaint alleges that defendant falsely represented that the messages were from an attorney, in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e and subsections (3) and (I 0). Bard seeks to certify a class of persons receiving similar prerecorded messages and requests statutory and actual damages, costs, and attorney’s fees.

The judge and both parties agreed that the message was a “communication” under the FDCPA. The Law Offices of Harold E. Scherr is also recognized as a law firm. But Bard’s case hinges on whether an attorney had any meaningful involvement in her account or if the firm was acting strictly as a collection agency.

In its motion to dismiss, the firm noted that that its voicemail message makes no representation regarding Bard’s debt or account which could lead Bard into believing that an attorney had become involved in the debt collection efforts. Further, its message was “designed” with FDCPA compliance in mind; other provisions of the FDCPA require a debt collector to provide its name and to specify that it is engaged in the collection of debt.

Scherr was responding to one of the cases Bard used in support of her claim (Greco v. Trauner – briefly discussed here). In Greco, a Circuit Court held that a disclaimer must be provided in a communication that specifically notes no attorney had reviewed the account. But in that case, the communication in question was a letter. Scherr argued that the case’s legal precedent applied only to letters.

Judge Amon disagreed. She wrote that although “the Second Circuit has not yet examined whether a prerecorded voicemail message by a law firm requires a disclaimer…this Court can find no principle that would justify a distinction between a voicemail message and a letter for purposes of FDCP A liability; in either case, the communication must not misrepresent the extent to which an attorney has become involved in the debt collection process.”

Judge Amon said that since the Second Circuit in Greco made clear that a letter on a law firm’s letterhead without a disclaimer implies attorney involvement, she finds “the prerecorded voicemail in this case may imply a level of attorney or firm involvement in the debt collection process.” Amon said that Bard’s allegations are sufficient to state a claim under the FDCPA and dismissed Scherr’s motion to dismiss.

 

  • Email
  • Print
  • Printing Articles

    1. Click here to print!
    2. ...or print directly from your browser by choosing File > Print... from the menu or by pressing [Ctrl + P]. Our printer-friendly stylesheet will make sure extraneous website stuff isn't printed.
    3. You're done!

    Close this message.

  • Comments
  • RSS

Posted in Collection Law Firms, Collection Laws and Regulations, Debt Collection, FDCPA, Featured Post .

×
Subscribe to our email newsletters

Continuing the Discussion

We welcome and encourage readers to comment and engage in substantive exchanges over topics on insideARM.com. Users must always follow our Terms of Use. Also know that your comment will be deleted if you: use profanity, engage in any kind of hate speech, post an incoherent or irrelevant thought, make a point of targeting anyone, or do anything else we find unsavory. Your comment will be posted under your current Display Name, shown below. If you'd like to change your Display Name, you must update it on the My Profile page.

  • avatar BHA LLC says:

    so if the name of your “LAW FIRM” is the LAW FIRM OF _____BLANK, just saying your name requires a disclaimer.

    what a complete idiot this judge is. how does someone with that mentality get on a bench, clearly this judge is biased against the collection agency, i would like to know if the judge or clerk is a dtr or has dtrs in the family.

    for the LOVE of GOD BARD, pay your bill

  • avatar BHA LLC says:

    The headline in his hometown should be

    MAN TRIES ANYTHING HE CAN TO NOT PAY BACK MONEY HE BORROWED

  • avatar BHA LLC says:

    headline

    MAN TRIES ANY LENGHTS TO NOT PAY BILL HE OWES

  • avatar BHA LLC says:

    HEADLINE

    MAN TRIES ANY LENGHTS TO NOT PAY BILL HE OWES

    a local man who doesn’t pay his bills looks for any excuse he can make not to pay. don’t do business with him.
    if you even call him to ask him to pay it, he’ll waste the courts time and money as well as his own, just to put a couple bucks in some ambulance chasers pocket.
    in other news judge allows it because he has no real cases to preside over

    that’s how it read to me

Leave a Reply