In a forceful opinion issued today, Sayyed v. Wolpoff & Abramson, No. 06-1458 (May 9, 2007), the Fourth Circuit rejected a debt-collection law firm’s argument that it enjoys common-law immunity from FDCPA claims that arise out of statements made in the course of litigation.
Farid Sayyed alleged in federal district court that the law firm Wolpoff & Abramson (W & A) had filed, in a state-court debt-collection action, interrogatories and a summary judgment motion that contained false statements. W & A argued that it was absolutely immune from FDCPA claims arising from statements made in litigation, and the district court agreed and dismissed.
The Fourth Circuit reversed.
It was absurd to argue that a debt collector can lie in litigation but its nice to have a well written opinion rejecting this crazy argument. Read the rest of the post at CL&P for additional analysis of this opinion.
Update on May 11, 2007 – read this good post for the perspective of the Michigan Debt Collection Law Blog for the analysis of a collection attorney.
Another resource for you is to join our Facebook Fan Page – Alabama Consumer Protection Attorneys where we share useful information about the same types of issues that we cover in this blog.