Jump to content

why are Attorneys allowed to operate as unregistered collection agencies in Oregon?


Recommended Posts

why are Attorneys allowed to operate as unregistered collection agencies in the state of Oregon?

collection agencies are supposed to be registered.

Collection Agencies - Oregon Licenses, Permits and Registrations

yet we have attorneys who act as collection agencies for 3rd parties and give a reasoning something to the effect of "Because we are Oregon collection attorneys, and not an Oregon collection agency" for their reasoning.

example. Collection Attorneys Oregon Eugene Collection Attorney

I've searched the Oregon Statutes for a definition of "collection attorney" and have found nothing. The only definition that shows up for Attorneys is ORS 697.005 1(B)(D)

(B) Collection agency does not include:

(D) An attorney-at-law rendering services in the performance of the duties of an attorney-at-law.

The Duties of an Attorney and a collection agency are two separate things.

Our neighbor state of Washington has almost the exact same statutes but I have cases where their judges have ruled that lawyers who act as a collection agency (dunning letters, calls, etc) are not acting as an attorney but as a collection agency and need to be registered as such.

whats up with Oregon? I cant find anything, no statutes, no case law, nothing anywhere that excludes attorneys from having to be registered as a collection agency when they act as one and not as an attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because many times attorneys are exempted from collection agency licensing...in AZ, the law specifically exempts attorneys from being licensed.

I've searched there is no such thing in Oregon.

for Arizona its true... it is very specific. but for oregon its not.

This is for arizona....

32-1004. Exemptions

A. The following persons are exempt from the provisions of this chapter when engaged in the regular course of their respective businesses but shall comply with the requirements of section 32-1051, paragraphs 2 through 7 and section 32-1055, subsection C and subsection D, paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 5:

1. Attorneys-at-law.

Edited by drummer55
Link to comment
Share on other sites

why are Attorneys allowed to operate as unregistered collection agencies in the state of Oregon?

collection agencies are supposed to be registered.

Collection Agencies - Oregon Licenses, Permits and Registrations

yet we have attorneys who act as collection agencies for 3rd parties and give a reasoning something to the effect of "Because we are Oregon collection attorneys, and not an Oregon collection agency" for their reasoning.

example. Collection Attorneys Oregon Eugene Collection Attorney

I've searched the Oregon Statutes for a definition of "collection attorney" and have found nothing. The only definition that shows up for Attorneys is ORS 697.005 1(B)(D)

(B) Collection agency does not include:

(D) An attorney-at-law rendering services in the performance of the duties of an attorney-at-law.

The Duties of an Attorney and a collection agency are two separate things.

Our neighbor state of Washington has almost the exact same statutes but I have cases where their judges have ruled that lawyers who act as a collection agency (dunning letters, calls, etc) are not acting as an attorney but as a collection agency and need to be registered as such.

whats up with Oregon? I cant find anything, no statutes, no case law, nothing anywhere that excludes attorneys from having to be registered as a collection agency when they act as one and not as an attorney.

Because they try to pigeonhole themselves into that exception that you listed. The FDCPA used to have a very similar exception. (Any attorney-at-law collecting a debt as an attorney on behalf of and in the name of a client) Case law on that is fairly sparse on that, but the federal courts did consistently rule that just because somebody is licensed as an attorney doesn't mean that they are actually acting as an attorney.

If you want to make an issue of it, you'd better be well prepared, because you will probably piss them off. You'll be directly attacking their right to conduct business as they normally do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're 100% sure you're correct, sue them. Let them tell the court why they are not licensed. Sometimes creditors, collection agencies and JDB have a different story when the question is asked by a judge than they will tell the least sophisicated consumer.

Believe me, it was GREAT watching this JDB argue to a judge they could use the business records exception to hearsay for the original creditors records. They had used that with me for months. The judge without pretending really had an I can't believe you just tried that look on his face.

It was a beat down by when they actually had to argue that to a judge. You could tell they would have rather been anywhere than having to answer the judge's question when it finally got time to explain why the original creditors records were not hearsay. Simply one of the best times ever in court watching that train wreck.

Edited by Coltfan1972
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest usctrojanalum

Attorneys constantly fight against being licensed as collection agencies (do not know why it literally usually is just a matter of paying approximately $100 per year), they do it in AZ, they fight against it here in NY.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.