DANIEL BOCK, JR. v. PRESSLER AND PRESSLER, LLP

Filing 59

OPINION. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 6/30/14. (gmd, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

DANIEL BOCK, JR.,

:

Civ. No. 11-7593 (KM)(MCA)

Plaintiff,
OPINION
V.

PRESSLER AND PRESSLER, LLP,
Defendant.

MCNULTY, U.S.D.J.:
The Plaintiff, Daniel Bock, Jr., ran up charges on a credit card and owed
money to the issuer bank. His debt was purchased by Midland Funding LLC
(“Midland”), which in turn engaged Defendant Pressler and Pressler (“Pressler”)
to collect the debt. Pressler sent Bock a collection letter, and then, on Midland’s
behalf, filed a complaint against Bock in the Superior Court of New Jersey. That
state action was settled, but while it was pending, Bock brought this federal
court action against Pressler. Here, Bock alleges that Pressler made a false or
misleading representation in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. § 1692e, by filing the state complaint without meaningful
review by an attorney. Now before the Court are the parties’ cross-motions for
summary judgment.
FDCPA prohibits a broad range of false, misleading or overreaching tactics
in connection with the collection of a debt. See generally 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et
seq.; McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmeig, LLP, No. 13-20 15 (3d Cir. June
26, 2014). Case law establishes that it is false and misleading, within the
meaning of FDCPA, for an attorney to send a debt collection letter without having
meaningfully reviewed the case. See Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC,
650 F.3d 993, 1001-1003 (3d Cir. 2011), cert. denied, 132 5. Ct. 1143 (2012).
One issue in this case is whether a civil complaint filed in court, like a collection
letter, is governed by the FDCPA. Although there are cogent policy arguments for
limiting the scope of the FDCPA, I am constrained by the language of the statute,
as interpreted by the Third Circuit and other U.S. Courts of Appeals, to hold that
a complaint is not exempt from its scope.
The process by which Pressler prepares complaints almost entirely
involves automation and non-attorney personnel. There is nothing wrong with

that; the FDCPA does not mandate drudgery or enshrine outmoded business
methods. The state court complaint filed in the state action here, however, was
reviewed by an attorney for approximately four seconds. The case law is sparse,
and it is possible for reasonable people to disagree as to what constitutes
reasonable attorney review. But whatever reasonable attorney review may be, a
four-second scan is not it.
Applying the law to the substantially undisputed facts, I find that Pressler
violated the FDCPA when it signed, filed, and served a state-court complaint
against Bock without substantial attorney review.
BACKGROUND
1. Procedural Background
Pressler is a law firm based in Parsippany, New Jersey. It specializes in
collection law and is a debt collector within the meaning of FDCPA.’ Pressler was
retained by a creditor, Midland, to pursue a debt owed by Bock that allegedly
exceeded $8,021.57.
Pressler opened an electronic file concerning Bock’s debt on September
12, 2011. (Pressler’s L. Civ. R. 56.1 Statement at ¶ 2). Then, on September 15,
2011, it mailed an initial collection letter to Bock. (Id. at ¶ 3). The letter requested
that he pay the $8,021.57. The letter, although it was on attorney letterhead,
contained a disclaimer: “As of this time, no attorney with this firm has personally
reviewed the particular circumstances of your account.” Bock did not respond
and did not remit any funds. (Certification of Mitchell L. Williamson, Esq. at Ex.
A).
On October 21, 2011, Pressler commenced a collection action against Bock
2
by filing a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Special Civil Part.
(Pressler’s Statement at ¶ 4). The complaint was signed on behalf of Pressler by
Ralph Gulko, Esq., “the attorney who reviewed, read, and signed the complaint.”
(Id. at ¶ 4-5). That one-page complaint states:
It [i.e., the plaintiff, Midland Funding LLC] is now the
3
owner of the defendant(s) HSBC BANK NEVADA, N.A.
1

See Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 294 (1995); 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(6).

The jurisdiction of Special Civil Part, a subdivision of the Superior Court, is
limited to certain cases in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $15,000.
N.J. Ct. 1?. 6:1-2(a).
2

HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., a division of HSBC Bank, is Midland’s predecessor
in interest. Pressler would not have meant to signify that HSBC Bank was a defendant
(it is not); no doubt the possessive “defendant’s” (rather than “defendants(s)”) was
intended. Pressler’s form complaint, which does not even require the attorney to tailor
2

account number 5458001561298245 which is now in
default. There is due plaintiff from the defendant(s)
DANIEL BOCK JR the sum of $8,021.57 plus interest
from 05/31/2010 to 10/20/2011 in the amount of
$102.98 for a total of $8,124.55.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands judgment for the sum
of $8,124.55 plus accruing interest to the date of
judgment plus costs.
(Williamson Cert. at Ex. B).
That form complaint generally refers to “an account” by number and a
corporate bank name. In fact it is a MasterCard revolving credit account,
4
although that fact cannot be gleaned from the complaint.
Bock answered the complaint on November 18, 2011, stating that he was
not aware of the alleged bill and wanted the defendant to furnish evidence of the
indebtedness. (Williamson Cert. at Ex. C). On February 24, 2012, the scheduled
trial date, Bock and Midland entered into a written agreement to settle the action
for $3,000. (Pressler’s Statement at ¶j 13-15; Williamson Cert. Ex. E). That
settlement required an initial payment of $2000, with smaller monthly payments
thereafter through September 2012. Id. The terms of the settlement set forth that
“[u]pon payment, the parties release each other from liability covering the matter
5
in this dispute.” Id. Bock paid the amounts due under the settlement agreement.
On October 30, 2013, while the state court action was still pending, Bock
filed this federal-court action against Pressler, alleging a violation of FDCPA.
(Complaint [ECF No. 1]). The federal complaint alleges that “[b]y signing the [state
court] Collection Complaint, Gulko certified that he read the Collection
Complaint and that, ‘to the best of his.. knowledge, information, and belief,
formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances,’ ‘the factual
allegations have evidentiary support.”’ (Id. at ¶ 36 (citing N.J.R.Ct. 1:4-8(a) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 11)). The complaint alleges that “Gulko signs so many complaints
that it is either physically impossible or so highly improbabl[e] that he read the
.

the language to a case with single or multiple defendants, is likely to blame.
Or from the collection letter. The letter does volunteer that, in payment of the
overdue account, Pressler will accept “Visa! MasterCard and American Express”— which
in itself might be confusing once the recipient figured out that the debt in question was
a MasterCard bill.
The release is illegibly signed by “Plaintiffs Attorney.” I assume that a Pressler
attorney signed in his or her capacity as representative of Midland, not with the
intention of releasing the law firm from claims against itself. At any rate, Defendant
Pressler does not claim that this action is barred by the release and settlement of the
state court collection action.
5

3

Collection Complaint or made a sufficient inquiry from which to conclude that
the factual allegations have evidentiary support. Therefore, Ralph Gulko on
behalf of PRESSLER made false representations to collect or attempt to collect
the Debt.” (Id. at ¶ 37). The state court complaint was therefore alleged to be
false and misleading within the meaning of the FDCPA.
2. Pressler’s Practices and Review of Midland’s Claim Against Bock
The facts surrounding Pressler’s preparation of Midland’s complaint
against Bock are critical, but virtually undisputed. I set them forth here, before
turning to the contested legal questions on which this matter hinges.
Midland, a client of Pressler’s since 2003, electronically transmitted
information concerning its claim against Bock using specialized software. It has
done the same with all of the cases handled on its behalf by Pressler over the
last nine years. (Affidavit of Gerald J. Felt, Esq. at ¶J 9-11). Pressler then
uploaded and electronically stored that information on its computer system. (Id.
at ¶ 11). The basic information that Pressler receives from Midland (and other
clients) consists essentially of the debtor’s name, address, and social security
number, the outstanding balance, annual percentage rate, other charges and
fees, closing dates of the billing cycle, the date the account was opened, and the
dates of recent payments. (Id. at ¶ 13).
The information is then subjected to a series of reviews by non-attorneys
and internal “scrubs” by Pressler’s computer system. First, the “New Claims
Department,” which does not include any attorneys, essentially reviews the
information for completeness, i.e., to ensure that none of the minimum necessary
information is missing. (Id. at ¶ 14). Then, Pressler’s outside vendor runs a
computerized scrub to make sure that the debtor is not dead, bankrupt, or
lacking a verifiable address, and to see that there are no preexisting claims
against him or her in Pressler’s system. (Id. at ¶J 15-16). If the claim file survives
this scrub, it proceeds to a second scrub in-house at Pressler. This computerized
second scrub reviews much of the same information, and further makes sure
that Pressler’s system contains no information indicating that the debtor no
longer owes a balance or has retained an attorney, that the claim is not based
on a ‘bounced’ check, and that the defendant is not in a state where Pressler
does not practice law. (Id. at 17). If the information survives this scrub, it is
imported into a form collection letter, which, after a final review for accuracy by
a member of Pressler’s non-attorney staff, is sent to the debtor. (Id. at ¶ 18-20).
Thirty-five days pass. If the initial collection letter is not returned to
Pressler, and Pressler has not received any repayment or made some
arrangement with the debtor, Pressler then transfers the electronic information
file to its “Approve for Suit Department.” There, “dedicated employees,” who are
not attorneys but “are trained to review the new claim further to determine
whether it should proceed through litigation,” are “tasked with checking and
verifying” the same basic information about the debt. In addition, they check
4

whether the statute of limitations has run, whether there is some unresolved
“‘dispute’ code” (it is unclear what Pressler means by this), and whether the
social security number on record is accurate. (Id. at ¶ 20-22). The same
employees make sure that the claim against the debtor fits within “certain
guidelines and restrictions given to us by each of our respective clients (e.g., no
request for finance charge will be sought on a particular group of accounts).” (Id.
at ¶ 23). Then, the “Summons and Complaint” team, which also includes no
attorneys, verifies that an initial collection letter was sent, that Pressler has the
correct home address of the defendant, that the defendant’s address is in the
New Jersey county in which the lawsuit will be brought, and that the suit is not
barred by the statute of limitations, any bankruptcy, or a “dispute’ code.” (Id. at
¶ 25).
If satisfied with this review, the team generates the actual Summons and
Complaint by populating standard forms with the information on file. (Id.). It
then electronically queues all of the Summonses and Complaints it has
generated for attorney review. (Id. at ¶ 26). The attorney at Pressler who is
responsible for approving complaints for filing in New Jersey is Ralph Gulko,
Esq. Mr. Gulko reviewed and approved the complaint against Bock. (Id.).
Each day, Gulko goes through the electronic “feed” of all the complaints
prepared by the Summons and Complaint team. (Id. at ¶ 27). On average, he
reviews 300 to 400 complaints per day; some days, he has reviewed as many as
1,000. (Deposition Testimony of Ralph Gulko Esq. at 92:24 to 94:5, Ex. P-9 to
Declaration of Phillip D. Stern, Esq. [ECF No. 34-3]). Via the feed, each draft
complaint appears on one of Gulko’s two computer monitors. On the other
monitor appears a summary of basic information, like the debtor’s name,
address, and outstanding debt, as well as a ‘note set’ in which any red flags (i.e.,
for a bankruptcy) placed by previous scrubs and reviews would appear. (Id. at
28:16 to 32:6; Felt Aff. at ¶J 27-28). Gulko’s review is intended to ensure that
the complaint accurately reflects the basic data supplied by the client (name,
address, amount of debt), whether 35 days have passed since the initial letter
was sent, and whether Pressler’s staff or computers have flagged the complaint
for any reason, such as lack of valid home address, bankruptcy, payments
received, or some other problem. (Affidavit of Ralph Gulko, Esq. at ¶j 5-6, 8; Felt
Aff. at ¶J 27-29). Pressler admits that Gulko does not look at anything aside from
the information on the second computer screen unless something is “unusual or
incomplete or in any way peaks [sic] [his] interest.” (Bock’s Statement at ¶ 43;
Pressler’s Resp. Statement at ¶ 43; see Gulko Aff. at ¶j 5-9). If there are no red
flags and he is satisfied with the accuracy of the populated information on the
complaint, then Gulko types “GD” (for “good”), generating his electronic
signature and transmitting the complaint to Pressler’s “JEFIS Department” for
electronic filing with the court. (Felt. Aff. at ¶ 30).6
Pressler’s computer system alerts the JEFIS department if anything like a
bankruptcy, a duplicate claim, or an invalid address has arisen or become apparent
6

5

On October 20, 2011, Gulko’s review and approval of the complaint
against Bock occupied a total of four seconds. Computer records disclose that
that was the period of time for which the electronic file containing the complaint
against Bock and the previously-culled data (described supra) were open. (Gulko
Aff. at ¶ 12). Gulko reviewed 673 complaints that day, approving 663 and
rejecting 10. (Id.). Neither he nor any other attorney was involved with Midland’s
case against Bock in any way before his brief review of the pre-drafted complaint.
(See Gulko Dep. Testimony at 26:14 to 27:12; Gulko Aff. at ¶ 9; Felt Aff. at ¶J 926).
By all accounts, neither Gulko nor any other member of Pressler’s staff
reviewed, or otherwise had knowledge of, the contract between Bock and the
bank, including any choice of law, choice of venue, or dispute resolution clause
governing disputes between Bock and his creditor. (Bock’s Statement at ¶ 47;
Pressler’s Resp. Statement at ¶ 47). Nor did Gulko or anyone else at Pressler
review the agreement by which Bock’s original creditor allegedly assigned this
debt to Pressler’s client, Midland. (Bock’s Statement at ¶ 50; Pressler’s Resp.
Statement at ¶ 50).
THE PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
Currently before this Court are Pressler’s motion for summary judgment
dismissing the action [ECF No. 32] and Bock’s motion for summary judgment on
the issue of liability [ECF No. 34].
Bock argues that he has established a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e,
especially subsections (3) and (9). The evidence, he says, shows that the state
court civil complaint against him purports to be attorney work product, but that
no attorney was meaningfully involved in its review and preparation. That, in
7
Bock’s view, constitutes a misrepresentation or deception under FDCPA. He
points to Gulko’s four-second review, the lack of any inquiry into firsthand
evidence (especially the underlying agreement and assignment), and the sheer
volume of complaints reviewed. These he cites as proof that Gulko did not
complete the meaningful review required by the FDCPA for communications
before the complaint is actually filed with the court. (Id. at 31).
The relevant sections of the statute are quoted at pp. 9-10, infra. Pressler
argues that Bock has failed to plead a claim under subsection (9). But Bock sued under
Section 1692e’s general prohibition of “false, deceptive, or misleading representations
or means in connection with the collection of any debt.” (See Complaint [ECF No. 1] at
¶ 44.01) Subsection 9 is just one item on a non-exhaustive list of acts that violate
Section 1692e’s general prohibition. Pressler also argues that Bock’s subsection (10)
claim should be dismissed because it is a catch-all provision that depends on other
violations. The argument is moot, as this opinion fmds that Bock has established
specific violations of Section 1692e and subsection 3. Cf Nielson v. Dickerson, 307 F.3d
623, 639 (7th Cir. 2002 (“the violation of section l692e(3) and (10) is inescapable.”).
7

6

bearing an attorney’s signature. Bock also asserts that review of basic
information supplied by a client, without more, is an insufficient basis for the
reasoned professional judgment required under the meaningful review doctrine.
Pressler argues that the FDCPA is not intended to incorporate by reference
N.J.R.Ct. 1:4-8, Fed. R. Civ. P 11, or any Rule of Professional Conduct. At any
rate, it says, any claim of such an ethical violation was waived when Bock did
not send a “frivolous litigation letter” in the state case, but rather joined issue
and settled the matter. Pressler expresses disagreement with the judge-made
meaningful review rule, and claims that, at any rate, it was not violated here
because the firm did not merely rent out its letterhead to a non-attorney debt
collector. It also points to the separate section of the FDCPA which provides that
a debt collector need not pre-verify or investigate a debt. It further argues that
the allegations of the state complaint were not false, and that both Pressler and
Gulko were meaningfully involved in preparing the complaint. Pressler stands by
its methodology for preparing and reviewing complaints, characterizing
consumer debt cases as simple, and its reliance on forms and computers
sufficient under the circumstances. (Felt Aff. at ¶ 33). It states that “[d]ebt
collection is a competitive business” and that Pressler’s standardized
methodology is its “secret sauce” for obtaining a competitive advantage. (Id. at
¶j 7-8).
I note a claim that is not asserted here. Although virtually all of the relevant
case law deals with attorneys’ collection letters, Bock does not assert here that
Pressler’s original debt collection letter was misleading, in violation of the
8
FDCPA. Such a claim would not pose some of the novel issues that arise from a
8 The letter was sent on Pressler’s law firm letterhead. Attached to Pressler’s
papers is a joint opinion of the New Jersey Committees on Professional Ethics and the
Unauthorized Practice of Law. That Opinion states that, under FCDPA, a collection letter
to a debtor may state that no lawyer has reviewed the file, and that a lawyer may thereby
disclaim any action in a “lawyer capacity” and act “as a mere lay debt collector.” That is
a problematic proposition under current Third Circuit law. See Lesher 650 F.3d at 1003
(giving no effect to similar disclaimer on the back of a letter, because it contradicts the
message on the front of the letter that the law firm has been retained to collect the debt).
See Discussion, Section C. 1, infra.

The ethics opinion itself reaffirms this State’s long-standing rule that to send
such a letter on attorney letterhead is a violation of the New Jersey ethics rules:
Since the UPL Committee issued Opinion 8 in 1972, it has been clear that
lawyers who send collection letters are engaged in the practice of law. A
lawyer cannot disclaim the fact that he or she is engaging in the practice
of law when using law firm letterhead. A lawyer who has not reviewed the
file, made appropriate inquiry, and exercised professional judgment has
engaged in an incompetent and grossly negligent practice of law in
violation of RPC 1.1(a). A lawyer who permits office staff, or a client, to
send collection letters when the lawyer has not individually reviewed the
7

claim with respect to a state-court complaint. It may or may not be true that this
federal court action was structured as a test case. Be that as it may, absent
9
indications of collusion (and none have come to my attention), the plaintiff is
master of his case and may select the claims he wishes to assert.

DISCUSSION
A. Legal Standard on Motion for Summary Judgment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that summary judgment
should be granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.
R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986); Kreschollek v. S. Stevedoring Co., 223 F.3d 202, 204 (3d Cir. 2000). In
deciding a motion for summary judgment, a court must construe all facts and
inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Boyle v.
County ofAllegheny Pennsylvania, 139 F.3d 386, 393 (3d Cir. 1998). The moving
party bears the burden of establishing that no genuine issue of material fact
remains. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322—23, (1986). “[Wjith
file, made appropriate inquiry, and exercised professional judgment, is
assisting in unauthorized practice of law in violation of RPC 5.5(a)(2) and
engaging in deceitful conduct in violation ofç 8.4(c).
Joint Opinion, Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (Op. No. 48) and
Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics (Op. No. 725), at p. 5 (copy at
Williamson Cert. Ex. H, [ECF No. 32-5]).
The lawyer’s responsibility for the integrity of pleadings in collection actions has
been the subject of active concern at the regulatory level. Both the FTC and the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (“CFPB”) have taken an interest. See
CFPB
amicus brief filed in Sykes v. Mel S. Harris & Assocs., No. 13-2742 (2d Cir.) (appeal from
certification
of
class
action
in
“sewer
service”
case),
http: / / files. consumerfinance gov/ f/ 201403 cfpb fair- debt-collection-practices-act.pdf
(arguing that FDCPA applies to communications directed to court, as opposed to directly
to debtor); FTC Report (July 2010), “Repairing A Broken System: Protecting Consumers
in
Collection
Debt
Litigation
and
Arbitration,”
www. ftc. gov/ sites! default! files/documents! reports / federal-trade-commissionbureau-consumer-protection- staff-report-repairing-broken-system
protecting/debtcollectionreport.pdf (see pp. iii-iv); FTC Workshop Report (Feb. 2009),
“Collecting
Consumer
Debts:
The
Challenges
of
Change,”
www. ftc. gov/ sites/default! files! documents / publicevents/ life-debt/ dcwr. pdf
(see
section on collection litigation beginning at p. 55).
.

The question here is whether that general regulatory concern corresponds to a
specific cause of action under the FDCPA based on insufficient attorney review of
complaints.
8

respect to an issue on which the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof
the burden on the moving party may be discharged by ‘showing’— that is,
pointing out to the district court— that there is an absence of evidence to support
the nonmoving party’s case.” Id. at 325.
If the moving party meets its threshold burden, the opposing party must
present actual evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact for
trial. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) (setting forth types
of evidence on which nonmoving party must rely to support its assertion that
genuine issues of material fact exist). “[U]nsupported allegations
and
pleadings are insufficient to repel summary judgment.” Schoch v. First Fid.
Bancorporation, 912 F.2d 654, 657 (3d Cir. 1990); see also Gleason v. Norwest
Mortg., Inc., 243 F.3d 130, 138 (3d Cir. 2001) (“A nonmoving party has created a
genuine issue of material fact if it has provided sufficient evidence to allow a jury
to find in its favor at trial.”).
...

When, as here, the parties file cross-motions for summary judgment, the
governing standard “does not change.” Clevenger v. First Option Health Plan of
N.J., 208 F. Supp. 2d 463, 468-69 (D.N.J. 2002) (citing Weissman v. U.S.P.S., 19
F. Supp. 2d 254 (D.N.J.1998)). The court must consider the motions
independently, in accordance with the principles outlined above. Goldwell of N.J.,
Inc. v. KPSS, Inc., 622 F. Supp. 2d 168, 184 (2009); Williams v. Philadelphia Hous.
Auth., 834 F. Supp. 794, 797 (E.D. Pa. 1993), affd, 27 F.3d 560 (3d Cir. 1994).
That one of the cross-motions is denied does not imply that the other must be
granted. For each motion, “the court construes facts and draws inferences in
favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made” but
does not “weigh the evidence or make credibility determinations” because “these
tasks are left for the fact-finder.” Pichler v. UNITE, 542 F.3d 380, 386 (3d Cir.
2008) (internal quotation and citations omitted).
B. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA)
Under the FDCPA, “[a] debt collector may not use any false, deceptive, or
misleading representations or means in connection with the collection of any
debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e. The same section sets forth, in its 16 subsections, a
non-exhaustive list of acts constituting “a violation of this section,” including, in
pertinent part:
(3)
The false representation or implication that any
individual is an attorney or that any communication is
from an attorney.
(9) The use or distribution of any written
communication.., which creates a false impression as to
its source, authorization, or approval.

9

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive
means to collection or attempt to collect any debt or to
obtain information concerning a consumer.
Id. The courts construe Section 1692e broadly, to further the FDCPA’s remedial
purpose and goal of “eliminat[ing] abusive debt collection practices by debt
collectors.” Lesher, 650 F.3d at 997; 15 U.S.C. § 1692(e). In assessing
communications to debtors, the courts adopt the perspective of the “least
sophisticated debtor,” so that the law protects the gullible as well as the shrewd.
Lesher at 997; accord McLaughlin v. Phelan Hallinan & Schmeig, LLP, No. 1320 15, slip op. at 8 (3d Cir. June 26, 2014). That said, this framework “preserv[es]
a quotient of reasonableness and presum[es] a basic level of understanding and
willingness to read with care.” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Quadramed Corp., 225 F.3d
350, 354-55 (3d Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
As noted above, attorneys who, inter alia, litigate collection actions are debt
collectors under the F’DCPA. Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291, 294 (1995) (citing
15 U.S.C. 1692a(6)); FTC v. Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d 159, 173 n. 11 (3d
Cir. 2007) (citing Heintz for proposition that FDCPA applies to the litigation
activities of attorneys). “The term ‘communication’ means the conveying of
information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any
medium.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692a(2). As discussed further herein, a “communication”
has been held to include a collection complaint filed in court and served on the
debtor/defendant. See generally Oppong v. First Union Mortg. Corp., 566 F. Supp.
2d 395, 400 (E.D. Pa. 2008), affd, 326 F. App’x 663, 666 (3d Cir. 2009).
C. The Requirement That “Meaningful Attorney Involvement”
Precede Communications By Attorneys
It is well established that “[o]ne cannot, consistent with the FDCPA,
mislead the debtor regarding meaningful ‘attorney’ involvement in the debt
collection process.” Lesher, 650 F.3d at 1001 (quoting Greco, 412 F.3d at 364).
It is a violation of Section 1692e for a debt collector to make what purports to
be, but actually is not, a statement of an attorney in connection with the debt
collection process. See id. at 1001-1003; Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas,
L.L.P., 412 F.3d 360, 364 (2d Cir. 2005); Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314,
1320 (2d Cir. 1993).
1. The Lesher “meaningful attorney involvement” rule and
collection letters
The “meaningful attorney involvement” rule developed in cases where the
debtor received a letter on law firm letterhead and signed by an attorney, despite
the attorney having not reviewed the matter. See Lesher, 650 F.3d at 999
(summarizing the “leading case” on the issue, Clomon, 988 F.2d at 13 16-1320).
The courts agree that such a letter would tend “to give the debtor the false
impression that the letters were communications from an attorney,” when in fact
10

“they were not ‘from’ the attorney in any meaningful sense of the word.” IcL Such
a letter is therefore false or misleading within the meaning of FDCPA.
In Lesher, the defendant law firm sent collection letters to the plaintiff even
though “no attorney with [the] firm ha[d] personally reviewed the particular
circumstances” of the case. Id. at 996. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
affirmed summary judgment against the law firm, reasoning that the letter would
cause a debtor to “reasonably believe that an attorney has reviewed his file and
has determined that he is a candidate for legal action.” Id. at 1002-1004 (finding
violation of the general prohibition in Section 1692e). The Lesher majority
°
1
declared it a violation of Section 1692e for a collection letter to be misleadingly
signed by an attorney and sent on attorney letterhead where the attorney or firm
had not yet “acted in its legal capacity when it sent the letter[.]” Id. (reasoning
that “it was misleading and deceptive for the Kay Law Firm to raise the specter
of potential legal action by using its law firm title to collect a debt when the firm
was not acting in its legal capacity when it sent the letters.”).
The majority’s holding in Lesher rested on cases from other circuits. These,
although perhaps more receptive to the idea of a disclaimer, give additional
content to the “meaningful attorney involvement” rule.
For example, in Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993), an
attorney worked as general counsel for a debt collector named NCB. NCB sent a
letter to plaintiff to collect a $9.42 debt owed to NCB’s client, a magazine
publisher. 988 F.2d 1314, 1316. This letter was one of about a million that NCB
sent each year on the publisher’s behalf. Id. The publisher would provide NCB a
computer tape containing delinquent account information, which NCB
transferred onto its own computer system, merging such information with a form
letter, without any NCB employee’s reviewing an individual debtor’s file. Id. at
13 16-17. An attorney had approved the form of the letter and the computerized
procedure for generating it. Id. The letters to plaintiff were on the attorney’s
letterhead, and bore a reproduced facsimile of his signature. Id.
The Lesher majority discounted the disclaimer on the back of the letter stating
that no attorney had been involved, noting that it directly contradicted the message on
the front of the letter that the matter had been referred to the attorney for collection. Id.
at 1003. In addition to the discrepant language, Lesher cited the disclaimer’s location
on the reverse side, but the extent to which the disclaimer’s lack of physical prominence
influenced the analysis is not clear.
A letter on attorney letterhead and signed by an attorney, containing a statement
that no attorney was involved in its production, has a certain surreal quality. Cf Rene
Magritte, “The Treachery of Images” (Belgium, 1929), image available at website of Los
Angeles County Museum of Art, http: / / collections .lacma. org/node / 239578 (a depiction
of a pipe, titled “Ceci n’est pas une pipe” [“This is not a pipe”], praised by the LACMA
curator as a “Surrealist masterpiece[]”). Even an informed reader might fmd the logic
more evocative of Dali than of Euclid. And the hypothetical “least sophisticated debtor,”
from whose point of view the letter is assessed under FDCPA, might just be baffled.
°

11

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit agreed with the district court
that the record demonstrated a violation of the FDCPA, particularly Section
1692e, subsections (3) and (10). Id. at 1320. It reasoned that the letters
purported to be from an attorney, but that this was “false and misleading
because in fact Jackson did not review each debtor’s file; he did not determine
when particular letters should be sent; he did not approve the sending of
particular letters based on the recommendations of others; and he did not see
particular letters before they were sent[.]” Id. The Second Circuit held that “the
use of an attorney’s signature implies—at least in the absence of language to the
contrary—that the attorney signing the letter formed an opinion about how to
manage the case of the debtor to whom the letter was sent.” Id. at 1321.
Accordingly, the court opined, mass produced letters signed by an attorney will
almost always contain misrepresentations. Id.
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, too, requires meaningful
attorney involvement before an attorney or firm sends a collection letter. In Avila
v. Rubin, 84 F.3d 222 (7th Cir. 1996), that court upheld the district court’s finding
that the attorney debt collector “violated § 1692e(3) and (9) because his collection
letters create the false and misleading impression that the communications were
from an attorney when, in fact, they were not really ‘from’ an attorney in any
meaningful sense of the word.” 84 F.3d at 229 (citing Clomon, 988 F.2d at 13 1413 16). The Avila court reasoned:
An unsophisticated consumer, getting a letter from an
“attorney,” knows the price of poker has just gone up.
And that clearly is the reason why the dunning
campaign escalates from the collection agency, which
might not strike fear in the heart of the consumer, to
the attorney, who is better positioned to get the debtor’s
knees knocking.
A letter from an attorney implies that a real lawyer,
acting like a lawyer usually acts, directly controlled or
supervised the process through which the letter was
The attorney letter implies that the attorney has
sent.
reached a considered, professional judgment that the
debtor is delinquent and is a candidate for legal action.
And the letter also implies that the attorney has some
personal involvement in the decision to send the letter.
...

Id. Accordingly, the court ruled that “if a debt collector (attorney or otherwise)
wants to take advantage of the special connotation of the word ‘attorney’ in the
minds of delinquent consumer debtors to better effect collection of the debt, the
debt collector should at least ensure that an attorney has become professionally
involved in the debtor’s file. Any other result would sanction the wholesale

12

licensing of an attorney’s name for commercial purposes, in derogation of
professional standards[.]” Id.
The Seventh Circuit elaborated further in Nielson v. Dickerson, 307 F.3d
623 (7th Cir. 2002). There, the attorney (like Gulko in this matter) had at least
reviewed the letter before it was sent. The Nielson creditor periodically forwarded
the attorney a computer disk containing debtor information, such as “each
debtor’s account number, name, address, account balance, and the amount past
due.” 307 F.3d 623, 626. The attorney’s firm “reformatt[edl the data into its own
system” and “pulled the data up onto a computer screen to check for any obvious
gaps or errors in the data.” Id. The firm’s computers would also check the data
against various databases, e.g., recent bankruptcy declarations, flagging the file
as needed. If the information was without gaps, errors, or flags, it was used to
populate a form collection letter developed by the defendant attorney. Id. at 626627. Eventually, the attorney, who had considerable experience in the field,
“himself reviewed nearly all of the printouts of the pertinent data, although his
review was admittedly quite brief,” perhaps a “few seconds to each account.” Id.
at 627.
The Seventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s findings that the attorney
had violated Section 1692e, particularly subsections (3) and (10). It held, as in
Avila, that a “letter that is issued on an attorney’s letterhead and over his
signature conveys the notion that the attorney has ‘directly controlled or
supervised the process through which the letter was sent[,]’” and “implies that
the attorney has reached a considered, professional judgment that the debtor is
delinquent.” Id. at 635. If such an implied representation is to be accurate, “the
attorney must have genuine involvement in the process through which the letter
was sent to the debtor.” Id. Though the court “acknowledge[d] that [the attorneyl
took some steps” in reviewing the letter before it was sent, it agreed with the
district court that these were “no more than a ‘veneer’ of compliance,” because
the attorney “made no independent, professional assessment of the delinquency
and validity of any debt, did not select the debtors to whom a letter would be
sent,” and reviewed only the finished form letter and “the debtor information
supplied by [the creditorl, but only in the sense of literally looking at the data
and checking for errors.” Id. at 638. The court found that attorney’s review to be
“ministerial” in nature, and with respect to his three-second review, “the brevity
of that review lays bare its cursory nature.” Id. at 636-67.
Lesher and the cases it cites, Clomon, Avila, and Nielson, address collection
letters specifically. This much is clear: When a law firm sends a collection letter
in its name, it represents that an attorney is meaningfully involved in a
professional capacity, and such a representation is false or misleading if in fact
there has been no attorney involvement, or only superficial, ministerial attorney
involvement.”
11

Pressler attempts to minimize the “meaningful involvement” rule by saying
13

2. Does the Lesher rule apply to civil complaints?
Bock urges that the FDCPA case law regarding collection letters applies
equally, or a fortiori, to a civil complaint, which carries an even weightier
implication of attorney involvement.
a. Potential bases to distinguish the case of a civil complaint
I consider two possible bases to distinguish the case of a civil complaint
from that of a collection letter. The first is a statutory-construction argument
that Section 1692e is intended only to reach direct communications between a
debt collector and debtor. The second is a more policy-based argument that, once
a complaint is filed, the FDCPA statute has exhausted its purpose and the court
rules take over the task of monitoring attorney conduct.
The parties do not really develop these arguments, so I touch on them only
briefly. For the reasons set forth here, I find that the rationales of the appellate
cases discussing collection letters apply equally to a civil complaint. And even if
I thought otherwise, I would not be free to enact my own conception of the proper
scope of FDCPA where the statutory wording is broad and nothing in it would
suggest that a civil complaint is outside its scope.
The argument that Section 1692e is confined to direct communications
between a debt collector and debtor seems to arise from certain of its
subsections. Those subsections list some nonexclusive examples of deceptive or
misleading practices, including
(3) The false representation or implication that any individual
is an attorney or that any communication is from an attorney.
written
any
of
distribution
or
The
use
(9)
source,
communication. which creates a false impression as to its
authorization, or approval.
. .

(10) The use of any false representation or deceptive means
to collect or attempt to collect any debt or to obtain information
concerning a consumer.
Those subsections, however, are merely nonexciusive examples of conduct
that would violate the more general mandate of Section 1692e that a “debt
collector may not use any false, deceptive, or misleading representations or
means in connection withthe collection of any debt.” 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (emphasis
that it concerns only an extreme case where a law firm rents out its letterhead to a nonlawyer for collection purposes, with “zero attorney involvement.” (Pressler’s Br. Supp.
Mot. Summ. J. at pp. 15-2 1). The cases are not confined to that scenario. See Miller,
supra; Nielson, supra. And the only thing that stands between this case and “zero
attorney involvement” is four seconds of attorney review.
14

added). Lesher repeatedly cites 1692e generally; its citations to specific
subsections in no way undermine FDCPA’s more general prohibition of the use
of false, deceptive or misleading means. “Any” is not a stringent prerequisite. The
statute prohibits not just misleading “representations,” but also misleading or
deceptive “means,” amounting to a very broad prohibition. And the deceptive
representations or means are not limited to a narrow factual context; they need
only be employed “in connection with” debt collection. See McLaughlin v. Phelan
Hallinan & Schmeig, LLP, No. 13-2015, slip op. at 7 (3d Cir. June 26, 2014)
(conduct “in connection with” the collection of a debt includes “activity
undertaken for the general purpose of inducing payment”).
As Lesher recognizes, the FDCPA is a broad, remedial statute, and as such
must be construed liberally. Lesher, 650 F.3d at 997; see also Jemian v. Carlisle,
McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich LPA, 559 U.S. 573, 602 (2010) (interpretation of
FDCPA to allow a mistake-of-law defense would be inconsistent with its “broadly
worded prohibitions on debt collector misconduct”). I cannot find in Section
1 692e any language of limitation that would confine its scope to letters, or even
to direct communications between debt collector and debtor.
At any rate, the subsections of Section 1692e, even viewed in isolation,
stop short of requiring that the “representation” or “communication” be one that
is directly addressed to the debtor. To be sure, it often will be, but the holding of
Lesher is not so narrow. Nowhere, for example, does Lesher limit its holding to
collection letters on the basis that they are “representations” to a debtor under
subsections (3) and (10), or “communications” to a debtor under subsection (9).
Instead, Lesher rests on the broader rationale that a communication under an
attorney’s name is misleading if the attorney, acting in his or her professional
role, has not meaningfully participated in its production. Nothing about that
logic would apply only to an attorney’s collection letter, as opposed to a civil
complaint.
Finally, even if Section 1692e were confined to direct attorney-debtor
communications, I would find unpersuasive the notion that a civil complaint
cannot constitute such a communication. A civil complaint, like a letter, is a
writing produced by the creditor’s attorney. Like a letter, it is communicated to
the debtor. True, it is initially filed in court, but the court is not its only intended
audience. The complaint must be served on the defendant (here, the debtor)
before the action can go forward. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 4; N.J. Ct. R. 4:4.
From the start, it is understood by all that a primary purpose of the complaint
is to place, not just the court, but the defendant, on notice of the claims.
Nevertheless, it may be asked whether the adequacy of an attorney’s pre
suit investigation should be considered a proper subject of regulation under

15

FDCPA. That is Pressler’s question, and it is a good one. The policy arguments
in favor of a “no” answer are by no means frivolous.
It is possible, for example, to read into Section 1692e, and especially its
subsections, a legislative intent to protect uncounseled debtors from the false
implication that, unless they pay, they will be sued. When a complaint is filed,
that prediction has come true. At that point, the debtor will obtain legal counsel,
or decide to go it alone. In either case, the matter is now in court, where
procedures are in place to ensure that valid legal arguments will succeed, and
invalid ones fail. The danger of debtors’ being intimidated by unfounded legal
claims is diminished if not eliminated.
Relatedly, one might argue that, once the case is at the complaint-filing
stage, the court rules, not the FDCPA, should govern the adequacy of attorney
review. When the case is still at the letter-writing stage, the FDCPA fills a
regulatory gap, imposing standards on the unsupervised activities of debt
collectors, including attorneys. But by bringing the matter to court, the attorney
has subjected it to an ethical supervisory regime.
The short answer to these contentions is that it does not matter. Because
the statutory language is broad enough to encompass a civil complaint, it must
be given its natural scope. See generally Sebelius v. Cloer, 133 S. Ct. 1886, 1896
(U.S. 2013) (Sotomayor, J.) (“[W]hen [a] statute’s language is plain, the sole
function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not
absurd—is to enforce it according to its terms.”) (quoting Hartford Underwriters
Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N.A., 530 U.S. 1, 6 (2000) (Scalia, J.); United
States v. Ron Pair Enters., 489 U.S. 235, 241 (1989) (Blackmun, J.) (citing
Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485 (1917)).
Thus, in Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 U.S. 291 (1995), the Court confronted an
argument that the FDCPA’s definition of a “debt collector” contains an implied
“attorney exemption.” That attorney/defendant pointed to “anomalies” that
would result if litigation activities were to fall within the statute’s scope. Id. at
295. Every unsuccessful lawsuit, he contended, might be considered a deceptive
practice, and the filing of an action might be deemed a forbidden
“communication” with a non-consenting debtor. He pointed to a statement by
one legislative sponsor that the FDCPA, as amended, would reach attorneys, “not
because of [their] conduct in the court-room, but because of their conduct in the
backroom.” Id. at 297. The Court was unmoved; the statute itself contained no
exemption for debt collection by attorneys (indeed, a prior exemption had been
repealed). And neither the Court nor, for that matter, the FTC could create a
litigation exemption, which would “fall[] outside the range of reasonable
interpretations of the Act’s express language.” Id. at 298. In short, FDCPA
“applies to the litigating activities of lawyers.” Heintz, 514 U.S. 291, 294; FTC v.
Check Investors, Inc., 502 F.3d at 173 n. 11 (citing Heintz) (“Attorneys who
regularly engage in debt collection or debt collection litigation are covered by the
16

FDCPA, and their litigation activities must comply with the requirements of the
FDCPA.”), quoted in Chuisky v. Hudson Law Offices, P.C., 777 F’. Supp. 2d 823,
830 n. 5 (D.N.J. 2011) (Wolfson, D.J.).
The policy arguments for exempting civil complaints from the coverage of
FDCPA are similar, and they merit similar treatment. The language of Section
1692e is clear enough; it contains nothing suggesting a distinction between
attorney letters and civil complaints for these purposes.
3. What level of attorney involvement is implied by the
filing of a civil complaint?
(a) The relevance of Rule 11 and the NJ Rules of Court

A civil complaint, then, like an attorney letter, may be misleading within
the meaning of FDCPA if it implies attorney involvement, but such involvement
is lacking. A law firm that signs a complaint represents not only that an attorney
is involved, but that the attorney has had a certain level of involvement in his or
her professional capacity.
What level of involvement? Guidance may be found in New Jersey Rule of
Court 1:4-8 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, which set forth the exact
representations (express or implied) that an attorney makes by signing a
complaint. New Jersey’s rule, which applies to the state-court complaint at issue
here, provides:
The signature of an attorney or pro se party constitutes
a certificate that the signatory has read the pleading,
written motion or other paper. By signing, filing or
advocating a pleading, written motion, or other paper,
an attorney or pro se party certifies that to the best of
his or her knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions
therein are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law;
(3) the factual allegations have evidentiary support or,
as to specifically identified allegations, they are either
likely to have evidentiary support or they will be
withdrawn or corrected if reasonable opportunity for
further investigation or discovery indicates insufficient
evidentiary support...

17

N.J.R.Ct. 1:4-8(a) (“Effect of Signing, Filing or Advocating a Paper”) (emphasis
added); cf Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). An attorney who signs a complaint represents
that he or she has “read the pleading” and made an “inquiry reasonable under
the circumstances,” and that “to the best of [their] knowledge, information, and
belief” formed upon such an inquiry, the claims and contentions “are warranted”
under the law and “the factual allegations have evidentiary support or, as to
specifically identified allegations, they are either likely to have evidentiary
support[.]” N.J.R.Ct. 1:4-8(a); see also Pressler & Verniero, N.J. Court Rules
(Gann), R. 1:4-8 at cmt. 1 (“Paragraph (a)...includes specific implied
representations regarding the factual and legal basis of the asserted claim or
defense...”).
Plaintiff Bock asserts, and I agree, that the rules of court serve a limited
function under FDCPA. That is, the FDCPA does not incorporate rules of court
by reference or create a private cause of action for their violation. Rather, the
rules of court help to define the level of attorney involvement that is impliedly
represented by the filing and service of a complaint.
I shall therefore articulate a holding rooted in the existing standards of
Rule 1:4-8 and Fed. R. Civ. p. 11(b), without creating a confusing parallel
regulatory regime. Before doing so, however, I discuss the only district court case
I have found that discusses this FDCPA issue with regard to a civil complaint.
(b) Judge Mauskopf’s Miller ruling concerning signed complaints
Bock cites a published opinion from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, Miller v. Upton, Cohen & Slamowitz, 687 F. Supp. 2d 86
(E.D.N.Y. 2009). Miller is unique, I believe, in that it exhaustively addresses
whether the plaintiff established an FDCPA violation based on the defendant law
firm’s scanty review of a civil complaint. 12 In Miller:, the plaintiff debtor had failed
to pay his revolving charge account at the Lord & Taylor department store. Lord
& Taylor was a longtime client of a Washington, DC-area law firm, Wolpoff &
Abramson. Wolpoff, in turn, referred Lord & Taylor’s claim against Miller to
Upton, Cohen & Slamowitz (“UCS”), its longtime local counsel for debt collection
in New York, where Miller was located. Wolpoff, after reviewing the information
itself, electronically transmitted to UCS the pertinent data required to proceed
with collection. Id. at 90. UCS, however, “did not have direct access to Lord &
Taylor’s file, which included, among other things, the controlling credit card
The attorney signed a collection letter as well, and the analysis does not always
distinguish between the two—but that may be the point.
Pressler points to evidence in Miller that the attorney had not logged in to review
the matter until after the complaint was filed. (Pressler’s Br. Opp. Bock’s Mot. Summ.
J. at p. 26). Judge Mauskopf did not make much of this evidence, and there is no
indication that it played any significant role in her analysis. Rather, she focused on the
attorney’s lack of involvement and inquiry before signing either the collection letter or
collection complaint.
12

18

agreement, Miller’s correspondences, Miller’s complete credit card payment
history, and documentation of Lord & Taylor’s internal collection efforts.” Id. at
93. Indeed, retrieval of any information beyond basic ‘pedigree’ information
about the debtor required UCS to directly contact Wolpoff or vice-versa—which
did not happen in this case.” Id. at 93.
UCS sent a collection letter to Miller, and thereafter filed in state court a
civil complaint against Miller. Miller filed a FDCPA suit against UCS based on
both the letter and the civil complaint. Id. at 90.
Initially, the district court entered summary judgment against Miller on all
claims. The Second Circuit, however, reversed and “remanded for further
development of the factual record concerning the single issue of whether or not
Wolpoff and UCS had conducted a sufficiently meaningful attorney review of
Miller’s file.. .as required under FDCPA § 1692e.” Id. at 88 (citing Miller v. Wolpoff
&Abramson, L.L.P. (“Miller I”), 321 F.3d 292 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 823
(2003)).’3 In Miller I, the Second Circuit held that “some degree of attorney
involvement” is required for a letter to truthfully fulfill its implied status as a
communication “from an attorney.” 321 F.3d at 300. The Court of Appeals
declined, however, to “declare a minimum standard” as to the amount of review
required. Id. at 304.
On remand, District Judge Roslynn Mauskopf convened a bench trial and
found in Miller’s favor. In her published opinion, Judge Mauskopf summarized
the trial evidence. Some highlights: UCS had “robust” prescreening measures
designed to “ensure the accuracy of the data” forwarded to it. It was a UCS
paralegal who oversaw the preparation of a draft summons and complaint
against Miller. Slamowitz, the attorney who signed the letter, summons, and
complaint, did so without reviewing either the physical or electronic file
concerning Miller’s debt. Any physical review of Miller’s file was conducted by
non-attorney personnel at UCS. Slamowitz and his partner signed 211 collection
letters on the same day they signed the collection letter to Miller. Id. at 94.
Reviewing the law on sufficient attorney review, Judge Mauskopf cited
many of the same cases cited in Lesher. She determined that Slamowitz and UCS
impliedly represented, in the collection letter and complaint, that they were
involved in the case against Miller. But the “superficial level of review undertaken
by Slamowitz and UCS was insufficient under the FDCPA” to justify that implied
representation. Id. at 96.
Judge Mauskopf made numerous holdings as to what constitutes
adequate (or inadequate) attorney review. She held:
•

An attorney’s review of “basic debtor information—the informational

This Second Circuit opinion, which I refer to as “Miller I,” is the one cited by
the Third Circuit in Lesher.
13

19

equivalent of ‘name, rank, and serial number’—without more, is
insufficient data on which to form a reasoned professional judgment as to
the appropriateness of a collection action. Id. at 97 (citing Miller1 321 F.3d
at 305 (finding that evidence that an attorney reviewed Plaintiff’s full name,
SSN, address, occupation, account number, and amount of debt, prior to
signing a collection leUer, did not constitute sufficient evidence to conclude
“as a matter of law that any professional judgment was exercised before
UCS sent its collection letter.”) and Nielsen, 307 F.3d at 635-38 (finding
that attorney “failed to conduct a sufficiently meaningful review of his debt
collection matters” where he merely looked at basic client data and
checked for accuracy and typographical errors, following up on other
automated reviews, before sending a letter bearing his name.)).
An attorney who commences a collection action must “review underlying
debtor information such as the underlying contract and/or client file.” Id.
(finding that Slamowitz, to avoid misrepresenting his involvement in
Miller’s case, “would at a minimum have.. .to review at least certain
available data that he wholly ignored... at least (a) Miller’s credit card
agreement with Lord & Taylor and (b) Lord & Taylor’s own files detailing
their previous in-house debt-collection efforts.”).
“[W]here an attorney commences suit in so uninformed a matter that he is
ignorant as to what law governs his suit [having not reviewed the
underlying credit card agreement], it cannot be said that he has
undertaken a level of review sufficient to satisfy even the most general
requirements applicable to attorney conduct, let alone the more focused
review requirements established by the FDCPA.” Id. at 97-98.
•

An attorney’s “failure to obtain and review” his client’s file “provides an
adequate and independent basis for FDCPA liability.” Id. at 98. Judge
Mauskopf found it compelling that Slamowitz and his partner handled “no
fewer than 211 debt-collection letters” on the same day they approved the
letter to plaintiff. Id. at 99-100.

•

“Even prior review of an individual debtor’s file by another, including co
counsel, is no substitute for an independent review by the attorney signing
and issuing [a communication].” Id. at 101.

Like the Seventh Circuit in Nielson, the Second Circuit in Cloman, and the
Third Circuit in Lesher Judge Mauskopf found that the attorney debt collectors
“did not conduct a sufficient attorney review for FDCPA purposes” before signing
the collection letter, and she extended that reasoning to the collection complaint
as well. Id. at 99. She further ruled that “generalized review procedures,” reviews

20

conducted by the other law firm, and review by paralegals did not make up for
the deficiencies in the UCS attorney’s cursory review. Id. at 101102.14
(c) Standards of meaningful attorney review
I believe that the reasoning of such cases as Lesher:, Clomon and Nielson,
especially as supplemented by Miller, compels the application of the “meaningful
involvement” rule to a civil complaint. The filing of such a complaint entitles the
proverbial “least sophisticated debtor” to conclude that an attorney is working
vigorously on the creditor’s behalf, is reasonably knowledgeable about the
creditor’s case against the debtor, and has exercised his or her professional
judgment. Cf Lesher, 650 F.3d at 1003 (“In our view, the least sophisticated
debtor, upon receiving these letters, may reasonably believe that an attorney has
reviewed his file and has determined that he is a candidate for legal action.”);
Miller, 687 F. Supp. 2d 86, 95 (quoting Avila, 84 F.3d at 229). The legitimacy of
this belief does not depend on court rules, such as Rule 11 and New Jersey Rule
of Court 1:4-8, but such rules give force and content to it. Indeed, such rules
5
merely codify basic, justifiable assumptions underlying the litigation process.’
Pressler objects, arguing that that the allegations of the complaint are not
false, but that contention is a red herring. The claimed misrepresentation here
does not relate to the ultimate veracity of the numbered factual allegations of the
complaint; it concerns the veracity of the implied representation that an attorney
was meaningfully involved in the preparation of the complaint. If, in fact, the
attorney who signed the complaint is not involved and familiar with the case
against the debtor, then the debtor has been unfairly misled and deceived within
6
the meaning of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.’

In a recent opinion, Judge Catherine C. Blake of the District of Maryland cited
the proposition that “[a] collection complaint can be misleading, in violation of
Miller for
the FDCPA, where it is filed with without an attorney’s sufficient review of the legal basis
for the claim.” Richardson v. Midland Funding, LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177240 at
*23 (D. Md. Dec. 18, 2013). Counsel for Pressler cited Richardson for the proposition a
single attorney’s status as “counsel of record in approximately 11,668 other collection
cases” did not in itself prove that meaningful attorney involvement was lacking. Judge
Blake dismissed the case, but only because it lacked sufficient allegations as to the
attorney’s level of involvement and the firm’s review process.
14

Pressler argues that Bock has waived his arguments because, in state court,
he did not follow the requirement of Rule 1:4-8 that a party who wishes to move for
sanctions must first place his adversary on notice and afford the adversary the
opportunity to withdraw the pleading that is objected to. This is an FDCPA case, not a
state court motion for sanctions. Rule 1:4-8, as noted above, helps give content to the
FDCPA prohibition of misleading representations, but it is not the source of plaintiffs
rights or remedies here.
15

16

Failure to appreciate that distinction may account for Pressler’s citation of
21

Accordingly, I hold that a signed complaint is inherently false and
misleading, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692e, where, at the time of signing, the
attorney signing it has not
1) drafted, or carefully reviewed, the complaint; and
2) conducted an inquiry, reasonable under the circumstances, sufficient
to form a good faith belief that the claims and legal contentions in the
complaint are supported by fact and warranted by law.

See N.J. Ct. R. 1:4-8(a); Fed. R. Civ. P. 11; Lesherat 1002-1003; see also Miller
at 99-102; Nielson, 307 F.3d at 635-638. This holding is not as detailed or
prescriptive as that of Judge Mauskopf, but I think it is best to establish the
principle more generally and allow for more detailed case-by-case elaboration.
I add the following caveat in response to Pressler’s argument that the rules
require only a belief that the allegations are likely to have evidentiary support.
That is, I think, a misapplication of N.J. Ct. R. 1:4-8(a) and Rule 11, as well as
common pleading practice. The attorney’s good faith belief cannot simply be
willed into existence, but must be “formed after an inquiry...” R. 1:4-8. The Court
Rule’s reference to the “likely” existence of evidence is not a license to allege facts
in the unexpressed hope that evidence may turn up. The Rule requires that
factual allegations “have evidentiary support or, as to specifically identified
likely to have evidentiary support [or will be withdrawn]”
allegations, they are
“Specifically identified allegations” is an obvious codification of the practice of
...

inapposite case law. Harvey v. Great Senaca Financial Corp., 453 F.3d 324 (6th Cir. 2006)
addressed a claim that a complaint was harassing and deceptive, in violation of Sections
1692d and 1692e(10), because it was filed without the immediate means to prove the
debt. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals only addressed issues concerning the
substantive accuracy of the complaint, not the truthfulness of the attorney’s implied
representation of meaningful involvement. Id. at 331-333. See also Deere v. Javitch, 413
F. Supp. 2d 886, 890-89 1 (S.D. Ohio 2006) (cited by Pressler but also unrelated to the
issue of the attorney’s representation of involvement). Pressler also relies on Derricotte
v. Pressler& Pressler, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78921, *1516 (D.N.J. 2011) (Sheridan, J.),
a case based solely on alleged harassment in violation of Section 1692d. Finally, Pressler
cites Christion v. Pressler & Pressler, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23751 (D.N.J. 2010)
(Sheridan, J.). That case, brought generally under the FDCPA, contained no claim of
deception or misrepresentation, and did not cite Section 1692e; rather, it dealt in
isolation with the statutory procedure for verification of a debt that a debtor disputes,
which is not necessarily a prerequisite to filing a collection action. Id. at *9.. 1• This
case, by contrast, does allege misrepresentation, and a very particular type of
misrepresentation at that. It arises under a separate section of the statute, and invokes
a body of law that Judge Sheridan had no occasion to address. Finally, I note that Judge
Sheridan only affirms the relevance of Rule 11 (and its state law equivalents) in attorney
debt-collectors’ litigation activities, in that he states that a failure to have all of the
required documentation to prove a debt is irrelevant so long as the attorney can file a
complaint in accord with his Rule 11 certifications. See id. I agree.
22

explicitly alleging, “on information and belief” facts that a plaintiff could not
reasonably be expected to know— for example, facts within the exclusive control
of defendant. Under the Federal Rules as well, pleading on information and belief
“does not relieve litigants from the obligation to conduct an appropriate
investigation into the facts that is reasonable under the circumstances; it is not
a license to... make claims.. .without any factual basis or justification.” Fed. R.
Civ. P. 11, Notes of Advisory Committee on 1993 Amendments; see generally
Levey v. Brownstone Investment Group, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23071 at *67
(Feb. 22, 2012). Allegations on information and belief, made on a valid basis and
identified as such, would not be barred by the two principles I state today. But
Pressler’s retroactive invocation does not help its case. The state court complaint
does not state that any of its allegations are made on information and belief, and
even now Pressler does not offer any legitimate justification for such pleading,
where a review of the file might well have established the relevant facts. In short,
the notion that allegations were “likely” to have evidentiary support is a nonissue here.

These two requirements stated above distill from case law and practice
what a debtor may reasonably conclude about the attorney’s level of involvement
when the attorney has signed and filed a collection complaint against the debtor.
Viewed from the attorney’s perspective, these principles set forth what the
FDCPA requires in order to render the attorney’s implied representations of
meaningful involvement truthful and insulate the complaint from attack.
D. Did Pressler’s review of the state court civil complaint
against Bock comply with the FDCPA requirement of
meaningful attorney involvement?

Ralph Gulko, Pressler’s only attorney handling collection complaints filed
in New Jersey courts, signed the complaint against Bock. He did not draft the
complaint, and he did not carefully read and review it in any meaningful sense.
He did not conduct any inquiry concerning Midland’s claim against Bock, let
alone one which could have permitted him to form a good faith belief that the
allegations against Bock had evidentiary support and were actionable under
applicable law. Accordingly, Pressler violated the general prohibitions of 15
U.S.C. § 1692e, as well as subsections (3) and (9) in particular.
First, the undisputed evidence shows that Gulko, and by extension,
Pressler, neither drafted nor carefully reviewed the complaint. Mr. Gulko was the
only attorney involved in the entire process. He admits that the draft complaint
was on his computer screen for no more than four seconds. (Gulko Aff. at ¶ 12).
He states that his brief review consisted of comparing certain contents of the
complaint, displayed on one of his computer screens, to data appearing on his
other computer screen, to ensure the complaint’s accuracy. (Id. at ¶J 5-6, 8). The
evidence shows, then, that in those four seconds Mr. Gulko’s eyes darted back
and forth between his two computer monitors, making sure the debtor name,
23

creditor name, and amount of indebtedness stated on the complaint reflected the
data file stored by Pressler. (See id.). Gulko’s rapid look-over of the complaint
against Bock, one of 673 complaints he reviewed that day (Gulko Aff. at ¶ 12),
cannot really be considered a careful review of the complaint, let alone an
exercise of the professional skills of a lawyer.
Second, even if Gulko had somehow managed to carefully review the
complaint in those four seconds, it cannot be said that he conducted any inquiry
into Midland’s claim against Bock. There is no dispute that neither Gulko nor
any attorney at Pressler had any involvement in the Bock matter prior to Gulko’s
final review on October 20, 2010. (See Gulko Dep. Testimony at 26:14 to 27:12;
Gulko Aff. at ¶ 9; Felt Aff. at ¶J 9-26). I find that no inquiry whatever could
conceivably have occurred within the time that Gulko spent reviewing the
complaint against Bock. This fleeting review was not sufficient to permit an
attorney to form a good faith opinion concerning the evidentiary support for
Midland’s claim against Bock or the applicable legal basis for that claim. That is
an inescapable inference from the four-second duration of Gulko’s review— but
there is more. The undisputed evidence confirms that neither Gulko nor anyone
else at Pressler (including its vaunted computer system) ever reviewed basic
materials like the underlying cardmember agreement (to confirm that there was
a legal basis to collect from Bock, to confirm what law governed, and to confirm
that venue was proper). No one at Pressler reviewed the assignment that allegedly
transferred ownership of the debt to Midland. (See Bock’s Statement at ¶J 47,
50; Pressler’s Resp. Statement at ¶ 47, 50). Yet the very first allegation in the
complaint against Bock is that “[Midland Funding LLC] is now the owner of the
defendant(s) [sic] HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A. account number 5458001561298245
which is now in default.” (Williamson Cert. at Ex. B). There can be no legitimate
contention that Gulko, through reasonable inquiry, arrived at a good faith belief
in the truth of this allegation. Yet, by filing a complaint, he impliedly represented
that he had.
If there were evidence in the record that the attorney had acquired
knowledge of the pertinent contents of the cardmember agreement or the chain
of assignment through some other, indirect means, it might be possible to give
less weight to the four-second duration of review. But there is no such evidence;
Pressler took the electronic data at face value. The inquiry implied by the
attorney’s filing of the complaint simply did not occur.
Pace Pressler’s objections, the preparatory actions taken by other nonattorneys at the firm do not insulate this complaint from a charge of deception.
Miller, 687 F. Supp. at 101 (“Even prior review of an individual debtor’s file by
another, including co-counsel, is not substitute for an independent review by the
attorney signing and issuing [a communication].”); Nielson v. Dickerson, 307 F.3d
at 635-37. Those preliminary “scrubs,” in any event, were largely concerned with
basic “pedigree” data and red flags, like bankruptcy, that would bar a suit. And,

24

as noted above, no person or computer at Pressler ever checked the cardholder
agreement or the chain of assignment.
In sum, the evidence shows that the only attorney involvement in
connection with Midland’s claim against Bock prior to Pressler filing suit on
Midland’s behalf was a hurried, ministerial review of the accuracy of certain
aspects of the complaint. There was no reasonable inquiry or exercise of
professional judgment. This would not meet the Lesher/ Nielson standards for
meaningful attorney involvement when sending collection letters, and it does not
meet the standards for filing a complaint.
There is no genuine material issue of fact requiring trial. I hold that
Pressler, when it signed and filed the state court civil complaint against Bock,
violated the FDCPA,15 U.S.C. § 1692e.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the motion for summary judgment of Bock
is GRANTED and the motion for summary judgment of Pressler is DENIED. The
parties shall, if they wish, submit letter briefs not to exceed ten pages as to the
appropriate measure of damages. Plaintiff’s brief shall be due in seven days, and
Defendant’s brief seven days thereafter.

LL /qcJJ<
/
HON. KEVIN MCNULTY
United States District Judge

Dated: June 30, 2014
Newark, New Jersey

25