Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On Monday at 9:30 a.m. we expect orders from the April 18 Conference. On both Tuesday and Wednesday we expect one or more decisions in argued cases; we will be live blogging both days beginning at 9:45 a.m.

Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, P.C. v. Lesher

Petition for certiorari denied on January 23, 2012
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
11-492 3d Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2011

Issue: Whether a debt collection letter sent by a law firm that (a) accurately identifies the firm as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.; (b) truthfully discloses that “no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of . . . [the debtor’s] account;” and (c) would be fully compliant with the FDCPA if sent by any debt collector other than a law firm, nevertheless violates the FDCPA because the firm’s use of law firm letterhead: (1) Falsely implies that an attorney has personally reviewed the debtor’s file in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3); (2) falsely “threaten[s] to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5); or (3) otherwise constitutes a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-stage documents

 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards