Renowned ethicist Michael Josephson once said, “[i]t is more difficult to know what is fair than what is unfair.” These words ring true to New Jersey debt collectors struggling to ascertain where the line between debt collectors and consumers lies after the Third Circuit’s recent decisions in Allen v. LaSalle Bank , 629 F.3d 364 (3d Cir. 2011) and Ogbin v. Fein, Such, Kahn and Shepard, P.C., 2011 WL 596898 (3d Cir. Feb. 22, 2011).
In Allen and Ogbin , the Third Circuit received its first opportunity to address whether a consumer may maintain a cause of action under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.A. 1692, et. seq. (FDCPA), when the communications were directed to a debtor’s attorney . Much to the debt collectors’ dismay, the Third Circuit’s holding is clear: an unfair practice is an unfair practice, whether the recipient of the communication is the consumer or the consumer’s attorney.
This content has been archived.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
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
