Collecting Through the Bankruptcy Process


Article by: Scott Paris


In 2005, Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act to amend the United States Bankruptcy Code (the “Act”). The changes made to the Act were designed to make it theoretically more difficult for people to file Chapter 7 Liquidation bankruptcy, forcing more filers into reorganization (repayment) through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. While these changes had the intended effect in the short term, the 2007 financial crisis threw a wrench in the gears of Congress’s intent in amending the Act. According to the U.S. Bankruptcy Courts, the number of filings consistently increased from 2006 through 2011, and by 2010 had reached pre-2005 amendment levels. Since 2011, filings have steadily decreased. This decrease is good for both the economy and the collections industry, but as collection attorneys, knowledge of the Bankruptcy Act and Rules is necessary for a successful practice…. Read More >

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Compliance


Article by: Scott Paris


The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) was passed in 1991, largely as a response to what Congress saw as an excess of unsolicited telemarketing and facsimile communications to residential, emergency and mobile telephone numbers. At its inception, the TCPA did not appear to be directed toward the regulation of debt collection phone calls where an existing commercial/consumer relationship existed. However, over the past 20 years the FCC and various Courts have applied the dictates of the TCPA to debt collectors, specifically those who call consumer debtor mobile phones. … Read More >

To Leave a Voicemail, or Not to Leave a Voicemail: A Collection Industry Dilemna


Article by: Scott Paris


Over the past five years, debt collection agencies and law firms have had to struggle with the question of whether or not to leave voicemail messages for debtors. The source of this quagmire, and its potential consequences, lay in the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and its interpretation by Federal Courts since 2007. It should be noted at the outset that under federal law, communications from an original creditor does not fall under the rubric of the FDCPA. However, individual state laws may have their own requirements for communications from original creditors. This article only addresses voicemail messages left by collection agencies, law firms or third party collection entities on your behalf…. Read More >

Debt Collection & Technology: Using Email, Wireless Communications & Social Networking in the Collection of Debts


Article by: Scott Paris


Congress enacted the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (“FDCPA”) on September 20, 1977 to protect consumers by eliminating abusive debt collection practices. At that time, the only modes of communication in debt collection were land-line telephones and U.S. Mail (now known as “snail mail”). Steve Jobs had just invented the first Apple I personal computer, the first cellular network had not yet been installed in the United States and Mark Zuckerberg (the “co-founder” of Facebook) was not yet born. For those of you familiar with the text and application of the FDCPA, it is painfully clear that Congress did not anticipate the emergence of new technologies utilized in the consumer collection of debts. Case law addressing the use of voicemail messages confirms this conclusion…. Read More >

Our Fees

Our fees are competitive and conform to industry standards. In most instances, the following fee arrangements are available:


1. Collection matters are handled on a contingency fee basis, but an hourly option is available and sometimes requested by clients who hold large balance claims. At a clients’ request, fees for collection matters can be billed on a per item flat fee basis for letters, pleadings, motions, and executions.


2. Uncontested foreclosures and related bankruptcy and eviction matters are most often billed on a flat fee basis according to the Fannie Mae guidelines. Contested matters, and counterclaims, generally require additional flat fee or hourly billing, subject to client approval;


3. Uncontested replevin cases are also handled on a flat fee basis. If the right to recover possession is opposed, the matter is converted to an hourly fee basis, upon client approval;


4. Mechanic’s lien matters are treated the same as replevin cases, unless they involve multiple properties, or otherwise relate to unusual subject matter;


5. Our firm is also pioneering the availability and use of alternative fee arrangements (“AFA’s”) for legal services that have traditionally been billed hourly. The availability of AFA’s is a product of our firm’s ambition to deliver legal services in an efficient and cost-effective manner, and help clients more effectively forecast and contain costs. AFA’s are available for an ever expanding range of matters, including litigation defense, discovery disputes, and appellate practice.

×