A new report from Harvard Law School’s Consumer Protection Clinic is examining how high-volume debt collection cases are handled in small claims courts, focusing on the widespread use of “coverage attorneys” and the pace at which cases move through the system, according to a published report.
The report, expected to be published in May, describes a process where substitute attorneys appear in court on behalf of creditors and debt buyers, often handling dozens of cases in a single session. In some instances, attorneys are responsible for as many as 70 cases in one day.
According to the findings, these attorneys may not always have full documentation or detailed knowledge of each account at the time of the hearing. Courts, the report notes, may still proceed with cases even when documentation is not immediately available.
The volume of cases moving through the system has increased significantly. In Massachusetts alone, more than 146,000 consumer debt cases were filed in 2025, representing a more than 60% increase over the prior two years. A large share of those filings came from a small number of companies pursuing delinquent credit card debt.
The report also highlights how frequently cases are resolved through default judgments. When defendants do not appear in court, clerks often grant judgments in favor of the plaintiff. The report cites observations that many defendants may not attend hearings because they did not receive notice or do not recognize the name of the company bringing the claim after the debt has changed hands.
Another focus of the report is the role coverage attorneys play in negotiations. Because these attorneys may not have authority to approve settlements or payment plans, discussions with defendants can result in delays or require follow-up after the court appearance.
The report describes courts as “extremely passive in their scrutiny of collection cases” and states that the use of coverage attorneys enables high-volume debt collection cases to move quickly through the system. It further characterizes the arrangement as presenting “clear ethical violations,” according to its findings.
It also notes that documentation requirements can vary by court, and in many instances, supporting documents are not required unless specifically requested. Critics cited in the report argue that this can result in judgments being issued without full verification of the underlying debt.
The study is part of broader reporting examining how small claims courts are being used to process large volumes of consumer debt cases and the systems in place to manage them.
