EDITOR’S NOTE: This article is part of a series that is sponsored by WebRecon. WebRecon identifies serial plaintiffs lurking in your database BEFORE you contact them and expose yourself to a likely lawsuit. Protect your company from as many as one in three new consumer lawsuits by scrubbing your consumers through WebRecon first. Want to learn more? Call (855) WEB-RECON or email admin@webrecon.net today! Thanks to WebRecon for sponsoring this series.
DISCLAIMER: This article is based on a complaint. The defendant has not responded to the complaint to present its side of the case. The claims mentioned are accusations and should be considered as such until and unless proven otherwise.
A consumer has filed a class-action complaint in Florida federal court, alleging that a pair of collection operations — including one that may have just been started — and a plaintiff’s attorney violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Florida state law after attempting to collect on an invoice for work that the plaintiff claims was not performed.
The background: The plaintiff, a Florida resident, originally sought legal representation from one of the defendants in October 2023. The plaintiff was seeking assistance with personal legal matters, and the attorney and his firm provided legal representation related to the FDCPA and the Florida Consumer Collection Protection Act.
- During the initial consultation, the plaintiff was quoted a retainer of $3,000, which was to be billed at $250 per hour, with any unused portion to be refunded. However, the plaintiff alleges that despite paying the retainer, he never received an engagement letter or formal agreement for the services.
- Over the course of several months, the plaintiff repeatedly requested documentation and billing statements but was only provided with sporadic invoices, showing minimal billing against the retainer.
- In March 2024, the firm informed the plaintiff that they had decided not to send a demand letter as originally discussed. The plaintiff then requested a refund of the unused portion of his retainer.
- After not receiving his refund and not hearing from the attorney, the plaintiff filed contacted the Consumer Assistance Program of the Florida Bar and made them aware of the dispute.
- Rather than receive a refund, the plaintiff next received an invoice from the law firm, seeking $4,137. When questioned, the firm said it decided to add the extra time that was spent on the phone with the plaintiff after the plaintiff contacted the Florida Bar.
- The firm then sent the account to collections, enlisting two different collection operations to try and collect on the unpaid invoice.
The claims: The lawsuit alleges multiple violations of the FDCPA and FCCPA against the defendants:
- One collection agency is accused of sending a defective validation notice that misrepresented the amount owed and failed to properly inform the plaintiff of his rights under the FDCPA.
- The law firm and its attorney are alleged to have attempted to collect a debt they knew was not legitimate, including charges for services not provided and future dates.
- The lawsuit claims the defendants engaged in harassing and abusive conduct, including sending confusing and contradictory communications and threatening to report the debt to credit bureaus.
- A newly formed collection agency is accused of sending collection communications without proper registration and using misleading tactics to collect the debt.
- The plaintiff alleges that the defendants failed to disclose his dispute of the debt when communicating with third parties.
The class action component of the lawsuit focuses on the collection agency’s alleged use of a defective validation notice that fails to properly inform consumers of their rights under the FDCPA and discourages them from seeking verification of the debt.
