ATTORNEYS LAW STUDENTS PUBLIC
TOP POSTS ALL POSTS SUBMIT POST
Share | Print | Report Post Due Process Chatboard


Hot Now...
• Attorney Chat Center
• Attorney Classifieds
• Attorney Chatboards
• Practice Areas
• Law Students
Most Popular
• Set Your Quick Links
• Chat Center
• All Chatboards
• Classified Ads

Re: National Arbitration Forum
Posted by -- on 4/18/08

    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    Your case law cites are out of date.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.

     
     

 
Google
 
Web Counsel.Net
  Site Map: Home Search Legal Jobs Classifieds Law Students Contacts Practice Areas Advertise
  © 1996 - 2008. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.