Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell Kay, 10-3194 (3d Cir. 2011)

Opinion by Cowen, J.:

The plaintiff, Darwin Lesher, received a notice from the Law Offices of Mitchell Kay informing him that the office was attempting to collect a debt he owed.  The notice was printed on firm letterhead, and included references to attorneys who worked in the office.  On the reverse side, the notice included a disclaimer indicating that no attorney had reviewed the debt.  Three weeks later, a similar letter was sent.  Lesher then filed suit, alleging that the letters had misled him to believe that an attorney was involved in collecting his debt, and that the attorney could, and would, take legal action against him.  If proven, this allegation would violate 15 U.S.C. § 1692e (1996).  Lesher prevailed on a summary judgment motion, and the law firm appealed.

The Third Circuit began its analysis by noting that claims brought under the FDCPA are analyzed from the perspective of the "least sophisticated debtor."  Based on this standard, it concluded that the disclaimer - which was contradicted by a claim on the front of the notice that the creditor had retained the firm to collect the debt - did not make clear that an attorney was not pursuing a claim against the plaintiff.  On this basis, it affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

Read the Opinion.