CFPB Files Suit Against Law Firm for Collection Activities

Our old pal Fred may be the next debtor who "just needs to pay his bills" if the CFPB has its way. It's just floated a draft consent judgment which tans the rogue lawyers' hides for lack of meaningful involvement in their thousands of collection suits, often stuffed with flimsy wet-ink affidavits to not really prove creditor and debt buyer claims. Let it be a lesson to all the bar member robo-perjurers across the nation.

.  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .  .
CFPB Takes Action to Stop Illegal Debt Collection Lawsuit Mill
Order Would Bar Georgia Law Firm from Churning Out Illegal Collections Lawsuits and Require $3.1 Million Penalty
28 Dec 2015

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed a proposed consent order in federal court that would resolve a lawsuit against Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, a Georgia-based law firm, and its three principal partners, for operating an illegal debt collection lawsuit mill. The CFPB lawsuit had alleged that the defendants rely on deceptive court filings and faulty evidence to churn out lawsuits. The order, if approved by the court, would bar the firm and its principal partners from illegal debt-collection practices, including filing lawsuits without being able to verify the consumers’ debt is owed, and intimidating consumers with deceptive court filings. The order would also require the firm and its principals to pay $3.1 million to the Bureau’s Civil Penalty Fund.

the complete announcement:
http://www.consumerfinance.gov/newsroom/cfpb- ... n-lawsuit-mill/

And this should be a reason for immediate disbarment, but of course the "good 'ole boy attorney club"  will sit on their collective fat behinds and do nothing.  Never met an attorney that wasn't out to (scXX) someone, usually both the client and the other party whomever they might be.

Very happy employees there,

https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Frederick-J ... ews-E328512.htm

What a crock of.....(expletive deleted). 3.1 Million needs to paid instead to the victims of Hanna's judgment mill. I know, because I was one of them.

I agree with you there Alfalfa, but there would be a significant drawback. Given the scope of the Hanna & Ass. operation if that $3.1 million were to be divvied up among the victims the result would be akin to one of those huge tort affairs. People would be receiving checks for paltry amounts.
I would have liked to see disbarment mentioned. I guess we both know that it wouldn't have been at this point. Perhaps later. We can hope! One thing is certain. This will definitely put an end to "business as usual" to an operation that has thought itself above the law for far too long. It has also made certain that certain individuals will remain firmly on the governments radar for a very long time to come. I'm not just talking about the Defendants in this case either. The people, and entities, involved in this case have now managed to garner a lot of attention that they would have done better to have avoided. This case may very well end up being far more important in the long run than we suspect right now.
Of course, nothing is over until it's truly over. This case may still "Magically disappear"! A year from now someone might remember it & say "...whatever came of...?" and not one of us will be able to come up with an answer. Or find one. That's not likely this time though. Too much publicity.
Live Well.
Gunnar

At a guess, the Bureau would have to dig in and fight for a straight judgment before discussing a restitution fund. This is a consent document, which means both sides give a little. Hanna admits or denies nothing, they fork over a penalty, the parties move on, though with an oversight leash attached to defendants. I've had to sign these myself after a long battle. Compromise settlements don't provide the soothing satisfaction of getting frauds to admit their bad behavior, but they are often the best one can hope for.

I'd agree with Gunnar that victim payouts might be correct in principle but would seem like an insult. I also think that the CFPB chose well in deciding to make an example of such acutely arrogant lawyers. The Hanna clan begged to attract the stink-eye of a government agency, if not an overdue revolt by injured consumers. The agreement painfully details how debt collection lawyers should do their jobs. You and I and every American reading the agreement can replace the defendants' names with those of multiple local law firms and have a road map to all the shortcuts they take to a person's assets. Their practices resemble litigation less than a Hostess Twinkie resembles a lovingly baked eclair.

This kind of scrutiny goes right up the hind cheeks of "professionals" who forever cry that they can police their own and should never have been dragged under the FDCPA umbrella. The defendants will be grinding their teeth if they try to smile through writing that penalty check. (Actually, the CFPB will be demanding a less visually exciting wire transfer. I might have preferred one of those oversize prop checks given by contest runners and corporate donors.)

Quote:

Hanna admits or denies nothing, they fork over a penalty, the parties move on, though with an oversight leash attached to defendants.

Of course they don't have to admit they did anything wrong. This has been standard operating procedure between the FTC and these rogue debt collectors for years. They break the law, get fined, "agree" to abide by consent orders---only to resurface like alligators in a swamp and continue the same illegal practices and under a different entity.
So, what has changed? Nothing!

The oversight is what I would call in to question. I really doubt that Hanna would be so foolish as to dive right back in to the same practices very soon. Lets' face it, he has no need. His choice of counsel proves that his share of that meager fine is not going to effect his net worth to any great extent. If I was a gov't. bean counter in charge of some kind of oversight my eyes would be focused closely on those jr. partners.
Leopards can't change their spots. These particular cats have been feeding very well on one type of prey for a very long time. They've become accustomed to a rich diet & they don't know how to feed themselves on anything else. While one cat may have the fat reserves to live on for a long while, the others probably do not. So, will it be starvation or will it be...? I think we know the answer to that question & I don't think it will be long before that answer becomes apparent. When it does we'll probably be just as disgusted with our gov't. as we are now. But who knows! Maybe one day we'll get a surprise. Maybe after being slapped once a violator will step out of bounds again & an agency like the CFPB will bring in something that will really send a message. We can always hope...
Live Well.
Gunnar

The deal is---I don't trust them anymore than I do than the system that is supposed to be safeguarding our money and personal information right now. Someone hacked into my rather meager social security account last week and took what little I had left to live on until the middle of the month. When I called to report the theft, I was basically given the run-around ("it's not 'our' problem"). If it isn't 'their' problem, then whose is it?

I am just very discouraged right now and tired of being used as a welcome mat under others' feet. I'll be okay.

Despicable, that's all I can say....
besides I'm sorry for you. Hopefully you can find someone to hold accountable and get your money back. Meager or not it is yours and no one else's and it SHOULD be protected by the entity entrusted to watch over it.
Good luck and we are here for you 🙏🏼

My friend, you have definitely been getting the short end of the stick lately. I know that you don't deserve this sort of thing, so I'm sure it's just a short term thing. Think of it as a test. You've passed & now you're going to move on. Be sure of it. We KNOW you'll be okay!
Hey, now that I think about it, is there any chance that you might be included in any of the restitution mentioned in that agreement that is to be made by those clients of Hanna & Associates?

Let's face it.  If you or I went in front of a judge and lied, we would be in jail.  Because Hanna is a member of the gold 'ole boys lawyers club he is allowed to lie as much as he wants.  As you said, that money is a drop in the bucket to him.  He has probably stolen 10 times that amount.  He and his fellow thieves will no doubt turn right around and keep doing what they are doing, they will just try to be a little bit slier about it.   As to whether the CFPB will keep an eye on him or not remains to be seen.  As to a message, well the message should have been jail time instead of a fine.

I doubt it. For now, I will happily settle for that money which was stolen from my account last week. I should take comfort in the fact that as bad as this was, it could have been a whole lot worse. I read where one social security recipient had hundreds of dollars drained from his account, leaving him destitute and and unable to pay his rent. When the bank kept giving him the runaround, he had to get the media involved:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/social-security ... ory?id=22565352

I just saw an on-air interview with a consumer law attorney who has sued Hanna many times and callled the settlement "A bunch of baloney. Why would they pay 3.1 million dollars? Hanna is tainted".

I could not agree more.

Hanna sent the following e-mail to the TV station:

"We did not initiate any pattern or practice with the intent to deceive or harm consumers. We treat consumers fairly while still upholding  a lawyers' duty to provide zealous representation".

Rubbish.

Sorry to say, these maggots are not scared of the  police or the  courts, having a lot of butt buddies in the legislatures collecting campaign contributions...excuse me, bribes). Unfortunately only a visit to an ER will dissuade them.