American Bar Association Condemns Debt Collector/DA Relationships and Letter Practices

  • 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

The American Bar Association Wednesday issued a formal opinion finding that a growing practice by district attorneys of allowing debt collection agencies to issue demand letters that suggest they originated from the prosecutor’s office violates ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct.

“Typically, no lawyer in the prosecutor’s office reviews the case file to determine whether a crime has been committed and prosecution is warranted or reviews the letter to ensure it complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct prior to the mailing,” Formal Opinion 469 states.

The ABA’s Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility concluded that prosecutors involved in this practice violate ABA Model Rule 8.4(c) that deals with “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” and Model Rule 5.5(a) that addresses unauthorized practice of law.

The relationships between many district attorneys and debt collection firms, primarily engaged in bad check recovery, began to receive scrutiny after a major article ran in The New York Times in 2012. As the ABA noted in its release, subsequent news reports have revealed that more than 300 local DAs’ offices have contracted with debt collection agencies.

Prosecutors involved in the partnerships frequently offer their seal and signature to use on dunning letters. The letters often threaten prosecution and steer the consumer to a fee-based personal finance class. The prosecutor’s office typically gets a cut of the money generated from the finance class. And all of this is done without prosecutorial oversight or determination of wrongdoing.

“A prosecutor who provides official letterhead of the prosecutor’s office to a debt collection company for use by that company to create a letter purporting to come from the prosecutor’s office that implicitly or explicitly threatens prosecution, when no lawyer from the prosecutor’s office reviews the case file to determine whether a crime has been committed and prosecution is warranted or reviews the letter to ensure that it complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct, violates Model Rules 8.4(c) and 5.5(a).” the opinion said.

Some states have moved to limit the offending behavior by passing laws banning debt collectors from using letterhead or seals of government agencies in their collection efforts, most notably Oregon last year. DA offices are also voluntarily pulling back from the arrangements under public pressure.

  • 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, Featured Post, Government Receivables, Municipal Receivables .

×
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.

Leave a Reply