Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

This week the blog will publish a multi-part online symposium on United States v. Texas, a challenge by Texas and twenty-five states to the Obama administration's deferred-action policy for immigration. Contributions to this special feature, as well as an “explainer” by this blog's Lyle Denniston, are available here.

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