CFPB Sues Ohio Law Firm Over Debt-Collection Practices
For the second time this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has accused a law firm of using overly aggressive debt collection tactics.
April 17, 2017 at 02:26 PM
4 minute read
For the second time this year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has accused a law firm of using overly aggressive debt collection tactics.
The CFPB filed a complaint in Cleveland federal district court alleging that the firm Weltman, Weinberg & Reis misrepresented in millions of letters and phone calls that lawyers were involved in collecting the debts, even though attorneys at the firm had not typically reviewed the consumers' accounts.
“Debt collectors who misrepresent that a lawyer was involved in reviewing a consumer's account are implying a level of authority and professional judgement that is just not true,” CFPB Director Richard Cordray said in a statement. “Weltman, Weinberg & Reis masked millions of debt collection letters and phone calls with the professional standards associated with attorneys when attorneys were, in fact, not involved. Such illegal behavior will not be allowed in the debt collection market.”
Weltman Weinberg, which bills itself as a “full-service collections firm” with more than 65 lawyers, is based in Cleveland. The firm has offices in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Illinois and Florida.
“We fundamentally disagree with the CFPB's allegations and believe that this lawsuit is the result of our firm's refusal to be strong-armed into a consent order,” Weltman Weinberg managing partner Scott Weltman. “We are a law firm that is legally allowed, under federal and state law, to provide collection and legal services. We are being truthful with consumers and factually accurate when we use our name and our company's letterhead for proper debt collection activity.”
The firm said it has taken every reasonable step to ensure that it collects on consumer debts in compliance with those statutes and to ensure that every statement made to consumers is accurate and not misleading.”
In collection calls and in form letters, the CFPB alleged, Weltman Weinberg repeatedly stressed that it was a law firm. The form letters were on formal law firm letterhead with the phrase “Attorney at Law,” according to the CFPB's complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In some letters, the firm referred to possible “legal action” against consumers who did not make payments.
Debt collectors told consumers during phone calls that they were calling from a law firm, sometimes referring to Weltman Weinberg as the “largest collection law firm in the United States,” the CFPB's complaint said. Those calls were made even though “Weltman attorneys generally had not reviewed a corresponding consumer's individual account file to reach a professional judgment regarding whether the consumer owed the debt,” the CFPB alleged.
The CFPB's six-year history has been studded with enforcement actions against law firms. In recent years, the CFPB has accused debt relief firms of illegally charging fees before resolving or reducing consumers' debts.
In January, the CFPB ordered the two firms and their president to pay nearly $580,000, along with a $78,800 penalty. Announcing the settlement, Cordray said, “Misrepresenting that a lawyer is involved in a debt collection action gives the collection a false weight.”
Copyright National Law Journal. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Related Articles:
|- CFPB Faces 'Rock and a Hard Place' in Pushing Arbitration Rule
- In Trump Era, Law Firms Prepare for Less Work, and Hiring, From CFPB
- D.C. Circuit's Brett Kavanaugh Doubles Down on Criticism of CFPB
- Richard Cordray Invoked Bob Dylan to Lift CFPB's Spirits
- Companies Push to Piggyback on Ruling Against CFPB
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEquifax Is Bashed for Forcing Arbitration on Consumers After Data Breach
12 minute readA Law Firm 'Cleverly' Used Ellipses to Fight a CFPB Investigation. But It Still Lost.
4 minute readIs the CEO Pay Disclosure Rule Still Alive? And: SEC Takes On 'Fake News'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250