A Law Firm 'Cleverly' Used Ellipses to Fight a CFPB Investigation. But It Still Lost.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has prevailed in its latest standoff with a law firm, as a federal judge ordered the California-based Seila Law to respond to the agency's demand for records related to debt relief services. A judge wasn't impressed with what she called a law firm's "cleverly" use of ellipses in the attack against the subpoena.
August 28, 2017 at 03:26 PM
4 minute read
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has prevailed in its latest standoff with a law firm, as a federal judge ordered the California-based Seila Law to respond to the agency's demand for records related to debt relief services.
Seila Law had protested the CFPB's administrative subpoena—known as a civil investigative demand—as “nothing more than an unwarranted and impermissible fishing expedition,” arguing that the agency's investigation was overly broad and sought privileged information. The firm also joined the ranks of companies challenging the CFPB's independent, single-director structure as unconstitutional.
But, noting a past ruling in which she upheld the agency's controversial design, U.S. District Judge Josephine Staton of the Central District of California said she was unmoved by Seila Law's constitutional claims. Staton, who was appointed in 2010 to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, had previously endorsed the CFPB's structure in ordering the pension advance provider Future Income Payments to comply with the agency's document demands.
“Like the respondent in Future Income Payments, Seila Law relies heavily on the arguments advanced in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, a vacated 2-1 decision from the D.C. Circuit that this court continues to find unpersuasive,” Staton wrote Aug. 25.
An en banc panel of the D.C. Circuit heard arguments in the PHH case in May and is expected to hand down a ruling later this year.
Staton similarly rejected Seila Law's argument that the CFPB failed to adequately state the purpose and contours of its investigation.
In the law firm's brief opposing the CFPB's investigation, Staton wrote, “Seila Law cleverly uses ellipses to suggest that the [civil investigative demand's] notification of purpose provides no clue about the nature of the CFPB's investigation other than that the agency seeks 'to determine whether … unnamed persons are engaging in unlawful ats or practices in the advertising, marketing or sale of debt relief services or products … in violation of … any other federal consumer financial law.'”
“But what Seila Law omits through ellipses provides the fair notice that it supposedly seeks,” Staton wrote. She noted that the civil investigative demand specifies “debt relief providers” and “lead generators” among the types of businesses under investigation and identifies particular statutes and regulations that may have been violated.
Seila Law's lawyers at Bienert, Miller & Katzman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
Staton did find one area of the CFPB's demand as overly vague. The CFPB requested information about “other services” offered by the firm, but Seila Law said that language could be interpreted to encompass its work in areas unrelated to the subpoena, including immigration, personal injury and criminal defense.
“The court agrees,” Staton wrote. She restricted the definition of “other services” to areas outlined in the subpoena “that would not be barred by the CFPB's practice of law exclusion.”
Law firms have proven to be a regular target of the CFPB, drawing lawsuits over their role in a variety of financial services, including debt collection and real estate closings.
In January, two medical debt collection law firms and their president agreed to provide more than $500,000 in refunds and pay a nearly $80,000 penalty to resolve allegations that they falsely indicated that debt collections calls and letters were from attorneys. Announcing the settlement, CFPB Director Richard Cordray said, “Misrepresenting that a lawyer is involved in a debt collection action gives the collection a false weight.”
In Cleveland federal court, an Ohio law firm is fighting similar allegations brought by the CFPB.
The CFPB's record against law firm defendants has not been perfect. Last month, a Kentucky real estate law firm successfully defended itself against allegations that its attorneys orchestrated an illegal kickback scheme.
Related Articles:
|- Law Firm, Fighting CFPB Subpoena, Urges Court to End 'Fishing Expedition'
- The CFPB Is Losing a Trial Court Ally in the US Justice Department
- How to Win CFPB Favor? Self-Report Misconduct, Like American Express Did
- Nothing 'Inappropriate' to See Here. CFPB Defends Going to State Regulators As Court Stalls Subpoena
- Kentucky Law Firm Beats CFPB's Kickback Claims
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
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
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