CLEVELAND, Ohio–A judge here has ruled in favor of a law firm over demand letters it had sent and against the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
The decision follows a mixed verdict announced on May 7 by a jury in the case of CFPB v. Weltman, Weinberg & Reis (WWR), after which the judge, U.S. District Court Judge Donald Nugent, said he would issue his own decision.
At issue was an April 2017 suit filed by the BCFP against WWR that alleged the firm deceived consumers with misleading calls and letters. The fundamental issue being litigated was the fact that there is no formal definition of “meaningful review” of lawsuit documentation. After the jury gave its mixed decision, Nugent gave the BCFP until June 15 to submit arguments to the court, and then two additional weeks for WWR to submit its response.
In his opinion, among other things Nugent ruled that:
- The demand letters sent by WWR accurately describe the identity and legal description of the entity sending the letter. “As such, it cannot be fairly described as false or misleading simply for correctly identifying Weltman as a law firm, and as the signatory,” the court found.
- Nugent found that the demand letters were sent on Weltman's letterhead, and accurately conveys the fact that Weltman is a law firm that has been retained to collect the putative debt. The court further found the letter does not state that an attorney has reviewed the particular circumstances of the account, does not mention any potential legal action, and is not signed by an attorney.
- The court found a series of procedures is followed by WWR, and that it has a robust formal compliance program in place.
- Plaintiff offered no evidence to show that any consumer was harmed by -- or that any consumer prioritized payments based on -- WWR's practice of identifying itself as a law firm.
A Buckeye Coincidence
Coincidentally, the BCFP lawsuit was filed while Richard Cordray was director of the agency. Cordray is now the Democratic candidate for governor of Ohio, the same state in which the ruling was handed down.
As a result of these findings and others, Judge Nugent determined that the BCFP failed to prove its case.
The court ordered the BCFP to pay the law firm’s costs related to the action.