Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

In previous years, the Court released orders the morning after the Court’s “Long Conference.” It has not done so this year. Beginning last Term, the Court consistently considered petitions at least two times before granting certiorari. To the extent that practice continues -- and there is no affirmative evidence the Court intends to drop it -- so we are again doubtful that certiorari will be granted in any cases today.

Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, P.C. v. Lesher

Petition for certiorari denied on January 23, 2012
Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
11-492 3d Cir. N/A N/A N/A N/A OT 2011

Issue: Whether a debt collection letter sent by a law firm that (a) accurately identifies the firm as required by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.; (b) truthfully discloses that “no attorney with this firm has personally reviewed the particular circumstances of . . . [the debtor’s] account;” and (c) would be fully compliant with the FDCPA if sent by any debt collector other than a law firm, nevertheless violates the FDCPA because the firm’s use of law firm letterhead: (1) Falsely implies that an attorney has personally reviewed the debtor’s file in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3); (2) falsely “threaten[s] to take any action that cannot legally be taken or that is not intended to be taken” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(5); or (3) otherwise constitutes a “false, deceptive, or misleading representation” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692e.

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-stage documents

 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards