The comprehensive set of guidelines contained in Opinion No. 10 was intended to keep a clear demarcation between the activities of law firm and nonlayer debt collection agencies. The opinion was premised upon the notion that blurring the distinction between law firms and collection agencies could lead to abuse of debtors and adversely reflect upon the legal profession.
Since the opinion was adopted in 1977, federal and state consumer protection laws, including most notably the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), have encompassed and far exceeded the regulation of collection activities proscribed by the Lawyers Board opinion.
Within the past several years, federal court rulings have made it clear that the FDCPA applies not only to collection agencies, but also lawyers. Like Opinion No. 3, this opinion became obsolete due to the evolution of more comprehensive substantive law regulations.
Comment
The comprehensive set of guidelines contained in Opinion No. 10 was intended to keep a clear demarcation between the activities of law firm and nonlayer debt collection agencies. The opinion was premised upon the notion that blurring the distinction between law firms and collection agencies could lead to abuse of debtors and adversely reflect upon the legal profession.
Since the opinion was adopted in 1977, federal and state consumer protection laws, including most notably the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), have encompassed and far exceeded the regulation of collection activities proscribed by the Lawyers Board opinion.
Within the past several years, federal court rulings have made it clear that the FDCPA applies not only to collection agencies, but also lawyers. Like Opinion No. 3, this opinion became obsolete due to the evolution of more comprehensive substantive law regulations.