Renting out the D.A.'s Stationery

I'm sure others also saw the front page NYT story today. It reports that many prosecutorial offices allow collection agencies to send notices to debtors on the D.A.'s stationery and ostensibly signed by the D.A. threatening prosecution unless a bounced check  was paid along with additional sums for a course on budgeting and credit. 

The D.A. does not review the claim before the letter is sent or even see the letter.

For every payment, the prosecutor's office gets a small sum.

The prosecutors quoted in the article actually defended the practice. To me it sounds abusive. Also just plain wrong.  Unethical? Illegal?

Comments

[John Steele]

Admittedly I'm shooting from the hip, but how can the prosecutor let the letterhead be used if the prosecutor's office does not supervise the claims in the letter?

[Rick Underwood]

This is illegal and unethical. It is "simulated process." There should be an investigation and a prosecution. I suspect this also may violate federal law. Unbelievable. But I am not an unfair debt collection guy. Someone help me out with this.

[Rick Underwood]

Guys -

Check out the Federal Fair Credit Collection Practices Act Sec. 807

In California check out Cal. Fair Credit Debt Collection Sec. 1788.16

Somebody got some splain'n to do?

[Richard Carmody]

The Das' offices were getting a cut of the $150-200 fee paid by the debtors who were required to attend a financial responsibility course.

Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012/09/local-das-allowing-debt-collectors-to-use-their-letterhead-split-fees-from-shakedown.html#3U3LWBYzLvO70M6i.99

[Rick Underwood]

According to the article Richard Carmody posted, they are doing this in the check collection context. In Kentucky there is a statute that allows the county attorney to do something similar, but they do it in their official capacity. I do not think they lend out letterhead. I will try to find out. I always thought it was abusive even in that context. I do not see how the practice they are describing can be reconciled with other law on "simulated process" and unfair debt collection practices. I am also interested in the source of authority for the financial responsibility course. Is that authorized by statute? Is it ordered by a court? This all seems very strange, but we seem to live in a society where the rules are different for different folks.

[Rick Underwood]

California Fair Debt Collection Practices Act § 1788.16. Communications simulating legal or judicial process or governmental authorization; unlawful practice in consumer debt collection; misdemeanor; punishment

It is unlawful, with respect to attempted collection of a consumer debt, for a debt collector, creditor, or an attorney, to send a communication which simulates legal or judicial process or which gives the appearance of being authorized, issued, or approved by a governmental agency or attorney when it is not. Any violation of the provisions of this section is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) or by both.

A California prosecutor is quoted in the article. What do you think John? I am not admitted in California. Perhaps the prosecutor will try to prosecute me for UP for pointing out the statute?

[Underwood]

Perhaps they will argue that this is "approved"? That is, without statutory authority the prosecutor can sell someone the right to do something that would otherwise be illegal? I thought that was called corruption or bribery or something. Welcome to the Hotel California.

[Rick Underwood]

Nobody gives a shit about any of this. Right? Sad.