Lawyer Representing A Debtor Is Not A Consumer Under The FDCPA

In _Tinsley v. Integrity Financial Partners, Inc._, No. 10-2045 (7th Cir., Feb 11, 2011), the Seventh Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a debt collector finding that a lawyer is not the consumer for the purpose of 15 U.S.C. § 1692c of the FDCPA. In _Tinsley_, the debtor was dunned by a debt collector prompting him to hire an attorney. The attorney wrote the debt collector that the debtor refused to pay and lacked assets that the creditor could seize. The letter requested that the collector cease all collection activities and to direct any further communication to debtor’s attorney. The debt collector stopped calling or writing the debtor, but it did call the debtor’s attorney with a request for payment. Debtor filed a suit under § 1692c(c) of the FDCPA contending that the debt collector violated the FDCPA by asking debtor’s attorney for payment. Debtor argued that the FDCPA prohibits any further communication once a consumer maintains that he refuses to pay the debt. Debtor claimed that the additional communications sent to his attorney after the refusal to pay the debt were a direct violation of § 1692c because the attorney should be treated as a consumer for purposes of FDCPA. In affirming the District Court, the Appellate Court observed that the term consumer was specifically defined in § 1692c(d) and that definition excluded lawyers. The Appellate Court then proceeded to evaluate the debtor’s argument that a consumer and his attorney should be treated the same, and found that such an interplay between the subsections of the § 1692c will render it gibberish. It further observed that prohibiting a debt collector from approaching debtor’s counsel with a settlement proposal would hinder pre-litigation discussions between lawyers. The Appellate Court therefore concluded that § 1692c as a whole permits debt collector to communicate freely with consumer’s lawyers.

Download Related Document