Gillie, et al. v. Law Office of Eric A. Hones, LLC, et al.

Summarized by Thomas DeCarlo , John Steinberger & Associates, PC
10 years 10 months ago

Citation:

Case No. 14-3836 (6th Cir. 2015)

Tag(s):

Ruling:

Private attorney retained by State to collect obligations owed to State is not "officer or employee" of State for purposes of exception from Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Attorney violated FDCPA by sending demand letters on letterhead of State Attorney General creating false impression that attorney was employee of AG Office.

Procedural context:

Plaintiff sued defendant-attorney in United States District Court alleging that attorney's use of State Attorney General letterhead created false impression in violation of FDCPA. Attorney asserted exemption from FDCPA under "officer and employee" exception. District Court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant. On appeal, Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded to District Court for further proceedings.

Facts:

The State of Ohio, using Requests for Proposals, retained defendant-attorney to collect debts owed to Ohio. Provisions of RFP provided that attorney would be paid a percentage of the collections, with all of the collections to be paid to Ohio which would then pay attorney. Ohio retained multiple independent attorneys under same RFP. State Attorney General also required that attorney use letterhead of State Attorney General. Defendant sent plaintiff a demand letter on Attorney General Letterhead that stated that the attorney was a "debt collector", was signed by attorney as "Outside Counsel for the Attorney General's Office", and included a payment coupon that stated that payments should be made to "Law Office of Eric Jones, LLC". Plaintiff was confused by the letter and was not able to figure out what the debt was and was confused by all of the names on the letter, although she though it may have been from the Attorney General. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the exception in the FDCPA for "officers and employees" of a State did not apply as the attorney was neither an officer nor an employee of Ohio, but was an outside contractor performing services for State, no different than the myriad other parties who contract with State for goods and services. Court also concluded that letters, read by least sophisticated individual, were confusing and misleading to the extent they implied that the attorney was a member of the Attorney General's office, not an independent attorney contracting with State. Court found that use of AG letterhead was solely for purpose of intimidation as there was no compelling reason for attorney to use AG letterhead.

Judge(s):

Clay and Gilman (majority) and Sutton (dissenting with opinion)

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!