Hypothetical Question....

[CountryLady 34]

Let's say the JDC is under a no contact order and he is on... say... this board watching the person they are trying to sue for an alleged debt.  You know he has been watching and really, who cares?  

 

But say this lawyer responds to a post you made.  Innocent enough?  Pffffft.  And you figure out who he is.

 

This would seem to me to be a federal violation. Would his response have to be preceded with the standard "this is an attempt to collect a debt blah blah aren't I stupid" kinda thing?

 

And not identifying himself as the attorney that has been told not to make contact....is that not another violation?

 

Just curious.  Thoughts??

 

 

[Guest usctrojanalum]

Interesting question for sure.  I'd like to know the contents of the post, that makes a difference.

[WhoCares1000 784]

Could happen but I doubt it. Just as anything you say can be used in court, so could anything the attorney says and I am sure they understand that concept better than most pro se individuals.

[willingtocope 1,336]

We've had examples in the past where a debtor made comments on the board and then sued the lawyer trying to collect. The lawyer tracked down his comments here and used them against him in court.

So, I'd say, if you can prove the lawyer "contacted" you via the board, you might have evidence for a court case. By no means would that be an easy task.

[CountryLady 34]

I do not confirm or deny anything.  I just tell the truth.

 

I suppose hypothetically, of course, the contact could be asking a specific question or offering friendly advice.   

 

Again, no accusations....just wondering if that might be a violation.

 

Being a non-legal type, I would think better safe than sorry.  File with any other violations and see where it goes.

 

Just my two cents.

[BV80 2,840]

@CountryLady

 

In his posts, did he try to collect a debt or convey information about a debt you might owe?  

 

1692a

 

(2) The term “communication” means the conveying of information regarding a debt directly or indirectly to any person through any medium. 

 

[A] communication made specifically to induce the debtor to settle her debt will be sufficient to trigger the protections of the FDCPA. Gburek v. Litton Loan Servicing LP, 614 F.3d 380, 385 (7th Cir. 2010).

We draw it at the same place the Seventh Circuit did in Gburek: for a communication to be in connection with the collection of a debt, an animating purpose of the communication must be to induce payment by the debtor.  Grden v. Leikin Ingber & Winters PC, 643 F.3d 169, 173 (6th Cir. 2011).

[Clydesmom 1,235]

Let's say the JDC is under a no contact order and he is on... say... this board watching the person they are trying to sue for an alleged debt.  You know he has been watching and really, who cares?  

 

But say this lawyer responds to a post you made.  Innocent enough?  Pffffft.  And you figure out who he is.

 

This would seem to me to be a federal violation. Would his response have to be preceded with the standard "this is an attempt to collect a debt blah blah aren't I stupid" kinda thing?

 

And not identifying himself as the attorney that has been told not to make contact....is that not another violation?

 

Just curious.  Thoughts??

 

If by "no contact" you mean that the consumer sent a "cease and desist" letter regarding a debt that does not mean that the CA or their lawyer can never speak to the consumer about anything ever again.  It means they cannot contact regarding that debt.

 

If the consumer posts on a forum discussing debts in general, football, or geraniums the C&D does not prohibit the lawyer from posting a response.  Even if the consumer posts about the lawsuit they are trying to avoid the lawyer can respond with general answers about the law, service, lawsuits etc. without it being a violation.  

 

Whether it is a violation or not depends on what was posted.  Absent an attempt to collect on the debt or discuss the debt identified in the C&D I don't see it being a violation at all.