As many know, the original creditors are treated differently from debt collectors. The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies, in general, only for collectors and gives creditors a copy career relatively free. Therefore, where lawyers fit in? And if I were to sue them if you can?
Lawyers can be debt collectors
Attorneys are not protected by the FDCPA. Can be, and as a practical point of viewsued what is probably a debt collector. However, if the attorney is representing an original creditor and act on their behalf, will be treated as an original creditor. If you have been sued by a debt collector, it is likely that the lawyer is also a collector, you can safely count on it. He can be processed by the things that hurts.
Before going to the lawyer claimed, however, there are two things you should know: one has to do with their legal rightsand the other is more a practical consideration.
Respondent Superior
There is a concept in the law that makes people responsible for the things that people act as their agents do. This is known as "respondeat superior." With few exceptions, the employer is responsible for the actions of an employee. This means that a client is responsible for the actions of his attorney. In general, this means that a debt collector is responsible for everything your lawyerago. Or, to put it another way, there is no need to sue the lawyer to attack the debt collector.
If you do it anyway, though?
Tactical considerations
Whether or not it makes sense to sue the lawyer is not an easy decision. So who takes the case personally, is a great threat to their personal and financial well being. Of course, you want to strike again, personally, the person can see the other side. The question is, however, this is thedecision more likely to give you maximum benefit? It 's more likely to cause to drop the case and leave you in peace?
I do not know. Most often, the lawyers reported that with regard to your case from a purely commercial point of view, trying to maximize profits and minimize costs to sue. And much of my approach to cases of debt has been to suggest that people take advantage of this business perspective, making the event non-viable. It is relatively easy to do, even ifcourse this isn't always enough. If you sue the lawyer, you change her motivation. Then, instead of it being a merely business decision, you increase the personal stakes for the lawyer. It makes things unpleasant for the lawyer, no doubt, but it also motivates them to work much harder in many cases. You have multiplied your enemies.
A Final Legal Consideration
If you are suing the lawyer, your claim is not exactly a "counterclaim." Instead, what you would probably do is counterclaim against the debt collector under the FDCPA and bring a third party dress (within the same application) against the attorney. The memory is just called a third suit names as a defendant and the lawyer and third-party states his claim in the same way you did the counterclaim. Then, the attorney must be served with a subpoena. None of this is particularly difficult, but it takes time. Given the questionable benefit to quote the lawyer, I thought it was seldom worth spending the extratime. You have to decide what makes sense to do in your case.
