Re: National Arbitration Forum

More | Report Post

On 4/18/08, Thomas wrote:
> Case Law:
>
> Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 2d Cir., No. 02-7017, 2/25/03
> In the case of Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson, 2d Cir., No. 02-
> 7017, 2/25/03, retailer Lord & Taylor referred a debt to the
> Wolpoff & Abramson law firm for collection. After reviewing
> the alleged past due account and the retailer's efforts at
> collection, partner Ronald Abramson sent a debt collection
> letter to the credit card holder, Arthur Miller. Miller did
> not respond to the letter. Thereafter, Abramson referred
> Miller's file through the National Attorney Network (a debt
> collection referral service) to a second law firm, Upton,
> Cohen & Slamowitz. This firm filed suit against Miller
> seeking recovery of the credit card debt as well as
> attorney's fees. Miller countered with his own lawsuit
> alleging that the law firm violated the Fair Debt Collection
> Practices Act (FDCPA), 18 U.S.C. §1692, by sending debt
> collection letters on attorney letterhead without meaningful
> review of the circumstances of the alleged debt by any
> attorney. Additional counts were listed in the complaint,
but
> this is the issue on which we will focus on. The district
> court granted summary judgment on all counts. On appeal, the
> U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the
> summary judgment stating that it was premature because the
> lawyers' affidavits contained too little information. The
> affidavits stated only that Lord & Taylor reported the debt
> was due for collection and that Abramson had exercised
> “independent professional judgment prior to authoring a
> collection letter.

Are you a law student?

Your case law cites are out of date. First thing a
law student at a good school learns about case law
research is to Shepardize your case cites and for
goodness sakeat least check for subsequent history.

The 2d Cir. case you cite [Miller v. Wolpoff & Abramson]
is from 2002. It has gone up and down a couple of times
sincethen [including a cert. denial by the US Supreme
Court;540 U.S. 823 (2003)] on the issue of summary
judgment and discovery requests. The case you cite does
notsupport anything, no final judgment has been issued --
it hasn't even gotten to trial yet (after 6 years of
litigation).

Some of your cites very old and seemingly unconnected
to your theory. For example, Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S.
43 deals with 5th Amendment law as it was over 100 years
ago. Interesting but totally irrelevant to arbitration
law as applied to credit card companies (there weren't
even credit card companies when that case was tried.)

Most of your cites are not in a usable format.
Simply giving the case name (i.e., Mile High
Industries v. Cohen; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts,
Szetela v. Discover Bank, etc.) does not provide a
useable cite. You need to include the case number
as it appears in a case publication (i.e., as you
did in Hale vs. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43) and ideally,
use a pin cite to the relevant pages.