A district court in Montana recently held that a collection attorney violated the FDCPA by asking a pro se consumer to admit he had no defenses when the attorney knew the consumer had raised a statute of limitations defense:
The inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Dendy asked a pro se defendant to admit false information. He either did so knowingly, or neglected to review his minimal file before signing the requests. He served the requests with no ostensible reason to believe that the defendant would understand their import. The requests for admission appear to be designed to conclusively establish each element of JRL’s case against McCollough and to use the power of the judicial process against a pro se defendant to collect a time-barred debt. This conduct is abusive, unfair and unconscionable. The Court’s conclusion in this regard is strengthened when one considers that JRL’s behavior is measured by the objective “least sophisticated debtor” standard. McCollough v. Johnson, Rodenberg & Lauinger, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1372, at *19–20 (D. Mont. Jan. 8, 2009).
The abuse of pro se litigants by collection lawyers is a massive problem. Collection lawyers take advantage of pro se litigants’ lack of understanding of the rules to get judgments without having to disclose that they lack the evidence they would need to prove their cases if they were put to trial by another lawyer. At least in Montana, they got pushed back a little.