A trio of law professors from different colleges and universities across the state of Texas have published an op-ed column opposing a bill proposed by Rep. Vincente Gonzalez [D-Texas], which would exclude law firms and lawyers engaged in legal proceedings from being defined as a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.
Coincidentally enough, the House Financial Services Committee is scheduled to debate the bill today, among a number of other bills that have been introduced.
Rep. Gonzalez introduced his bill back in December. Full text of the bill can be accessed here.
The professors — Mary Spector, who is a professor of law at the SMU Dedman School of Law, Genevieve Hebert Fajardo, who is a clinical professor of law at St. Mary’s University School of Law, and Neil L. Sobol, who is a professor of law at the Texas A&M University School of Law — argue that if enacted, the bill would more lawsuits and more “unfair” litigation tactics from lawyers.
A disproportionate number of Texans, compared with residents of other states, have debts in collection, and the number of lawsuits filed against individuals to recoup unpaid debts has grown by 10% during the past four years. About 30% of those cases resulted in a default judgment in favor of the owner of the debt, be it a creditor or debt buyer, the professors allege.
“Yet, rather than provide consumers with additional protection and resources they need, a bill sponsored by Texas’ own Vicente Gonzalez, D-McAllen, House Resolution 4550, would give attorneys and law firms a free pass when they use false, misleading or abusive practices to collect debts in court.”
The bill would lead lawyers to use the legal system to “immunize” themselves in an “already over-burdened legal system,” according to the professors, and lead to an increase in unfair litigation tactics, including:
- filing lawsuits against consumers in distant courts
- lawsuits to collect zombie debt
- lawsuits to collect amounts not owed
“Accordingly, we write to express our belief that lawyers who engage in abusive litigation practices to collect consumer debt should not be immunized from liability under the FDCPA.”
