Subscribe to this blog's feed

Categories

Archives

About

Blog powered by Typepad

Google

  • Google
    Google

    WWW
    insuranceclaimsbadfaith.typepad.com

Disclaimer

  • REMINDER: THE CONTENTS OF THIS BLOG DO NOT MAKE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIP. ALWAYS CONSULT THE CASES AND LAWS OF EACH PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND AN ATTORNEY IN AND FAMILIAR WITH THE PARTICULAR JURISDICTION AND ITS LAWS, WHENEVER YOU TRY TO ADDRESS OR RESOLVE ANY LEGAL QUESTION.
    The information provided on this site is informational, only. We cannot represent, guarantee or warrant that the information contained in this site is appropriate for the usage of any particular reader. We are independent of cross links and do not warrant their accuracy or applicability. We are located in Florida and comply with all ethical rules of the Florida Bar. Some States may require the wording "This is an advertisement" or other words or information of this nature. Reading email or Comments, or replying to email or Comments, or accepting telephone calls or returning telephone calls shall not be considered legal advice. We require that all agreements for professional services be in writing and signed by Mr. Wall, the Firm and the client, whether for Legal Services, Consulting Services, or Expert Witness.

« MORE ON "COMPUTER MODELLING MAKES FOOLS OF US ALL." | Main | Pre-Dorian Damage Report: FLORIDA "DISINTERESTED APPRAISER." »

August 30, 2019

CHALLENGING CFPB's PROPOSED NEW RULE 11.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has proposed a new "Rule 11," in its proposed new rule at 12 CFR 100618(g).  Supposedly the new rule is intended to affect debt collectors under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).

CFPB's proposed new rule is not authorized by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act or otherwise. The proposed new Section 100618(g) regulates attorneys and not debt collectors.

The proposed rule provides immunity to debt collection attorneys, which the CFPB is not authorized to do. It does not "prescribe rules with respect to the collection of debts by debt collectors, as defined[.]" The proposed new rule relies on defining "meaningful attorney involvement case law," but that interpretation is up to judges to decide, and not to the CFPB.

Further, the CFPB's proposed new "Rule 11" in new 12 CFR 100618(g) omits relevant and important safeguards on attorney conduct prescribed by Rule 11 for all forms of attorney conduct in litigation of any kind in federal courts.

These are just some of the problems raised by this new "Rule 11."

Download CHALLENGING CFPB PROPOSED RULE 11 NEW CFR 100618(g).08.19.19.

Please Read The Disclaimer. ©2019 Dennis J. Wall.  All Rights Reserved.

Posted by on August 30, 2019 at 02:38 PM in Attorney's Fees, Attorney-Client Privilege, Bad Faith, Immunity, Rules and regulations |

Tags: #15 USC section 1692e, #15 USC section 1692l, #acts with delegated powers, #admiinistrative agency, #authorized, #CFPB, #Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, #debt collection, #debt collection attorneys, #debt collection litigation, #debt collection rule, #debt collectors, #Dennis J. Wall, #equal protection, #Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, #FDCPA, #FDCPA section 807, #FDCPA section 814(d), #federal courts, #federal government guarantee of equal protection of the laws, #federal litigation, #Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, #immunity, #immunity to debt collection attorneys, #Rule 11(b), #safe harbor, #unauthorized

Comments

The comments to this entry are closed.