Law Firm Uses Interesting but Unethical Methods to Drum Up FDCPA Cases

On a case I filed, Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC asked and Judge Lee P. Rudofsky granted confidentiality of the majority of “evidence” on which the court granted summary judgment in the debt buyer’s favor. The attorneys for PRA acted unethically. The judge acted unethically. But there was no relief given by the Eighth Circuit or SCOTUS. So, as part of the “protective order” written by PRA, I have the task of collecting all the paper copies of documents PRA designated sealed or confidential and deleting electronic copies from my computer and phone. This is a daunting task for me, and I have found one reason after another to procrastinate.

As I went down another rabbit hole about confidential documents, I found an interesting case against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC. The punchline is that the plaintiff’s attorney in the FDCPA case was sanctioned for unprofessional conduct.

Because I am trying to focus on my task at hand, I only skimmed the court documents. I will surely read them with my usual eye for detail after destroying my copies of the Star Chamber documents in my case.

For those of you with more time than I have, enjoy reading about Rule 11 sanctions imposed on plaintiff’s counsel in an FDCPA case now.

It is notable that the costs imposed against the plaintiff’s attorneys on two cases where they did the same unethical conduct totaled only half the costs imposed against me, a pro se litigant who did nothing unethical and merely wanted a jury to see the evidence in my case.