A new academic paper from Harvard Law School warns that the widespread use of “coverage attorneys,” lawyers hired on a per-diem basis to appear in court for collection firms, has become a defining feature of modern debt collection litigation and raises significant ethical and procedural concerns.
Why it matters: Debt collection cases dominate civil dockets nationwide, accounting for more than 40% of state court filings in some jurisdictions, according to the report. Yet, it’s often not the collection firms’ own lawyers who appear in court. Instead, temporary “coverage attorneys,” who are paid a small fee for each appearance, handle most hearings without meaningful knowledge of the case or contact with the firm’s clients.
The background: Hundreds of thousands of debt collection lawsuits are filed each year, many on behalf of large debt buyers. Because of the sheer geographic and volume demands, the report explains, firms rely on substitute attorneys to cover hearings across multiple courts. Interviews with former judges, clerks, and practitioners in Massachusetts revealed that coverage attorneys handle “99% of appearances” in small claims debt.
These lawyers are typically hired through administrative staff or third-party services not by the attorneys of record. They often receive only minimal case information, such as the consumer’s name, balance due, and a form to report results back to the firm.
Key findings:
- Coverage attorneys frequently lack firsthand knowledge of the case and are not supervised by counsel of record.
- Many have limited or no authority to negotiate or settle, frustrating courts and consumers alike.
- The practice is largely unique to debt collection and is viewed by many interviewees as the “engine” driving assembly-line litigation.
- Massachusetts and other states have few enforceable rules governing the use of substitute counsel, with many courts failing to require notices of appearance or disclosures.
What’s next: The report’s author argues that this practice undermines professional responsibility standards and compromises the integrity of state courts. The report calls for reforms, including stricter oversight of substitute appearances and greater enforcement of ethical obligations.
The takeaway: For creditors, debt buyers, and law firms, the paper highlights growing scrutiny of high-volume litigation practices, and potential exposure if coverage attorneys act without adequate supervision or authority. For the courts, it underscores the extent to which debt collection litigation has evolved into a true “assembly line,” powered not just by automation, but by armies of outsourced attorneys.
