Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Attorney responds to my accusations of NACA attorneys’ cream skimming
Dear Christine:
I’m not sure what you mean by “cream skimming” [I can infer, of course, but I’ve never heard the rather strange phrase], but I read with interest your comments re: the FCRA attorney who wanted to charge $200 for an initial review of a putative claim/case. And I respectfully but vehemently disagree with your contentions and conclusions.
Cream skimming - the Google search results.
“Cream skimming” is often used in reference to insurance, but generally applies to all who only seek the most profitable business. In a capitalistic society this is acceptable conduct, however, it is NOT acceptable conduct for “consumer advocate” attorneys.
The attorneys are looking for the most profitable consumers, the slam dunk fat settlement checks while ignoring 99%+ of the consumers with credit problems.
To be sure, his response was almost precisely what mine would have been/would be [although I bill at $190/hr.], and what you and many other consumers/potential clients don’t seem to understand is that all we attorneys have to offer is our valuable time. Moreover, if we were to spend an hour reviewing each referral case that contacted us, we’d be left with no billable time whatsoever.
I fully understand that. After all, I’ve been working 12-14 hours a day 360 days/yr and I’m BROKE.
And how do you expect an attorney is supposed to become familiar with the facts and nuances of a case before deciding how or whether to proceed? Are you suggesting we/they simply accept every contention and fact as presented by the putative client - and even if everything they stated was 100% accurate, it would be impossible to advise competently without reviewing the physical documents, etc. from that particular file/case.
Credit reporting isn’t exactly rocket science. Yes, it’s complicated, but not THAT complicated—after all, consumers with an 8th grade education are supposed to understand it. I know that some consumers lie and misunderstand the reports and results, but how can a “consumer advocate” limit services only to consumers with the cash or credit to PAY $200 for a review that will leave the consumer with no benefit?
It’s obvious that the attorneys are lacking an understanding of the value of $200 to consumers with credit problems.
Believe me, while I happen not to be affiliated with NACA in any way [that I’m aware of], you can rest assured I’m extremely passionate about and experienced in - both professionally and personally [I’ve sued the CRAs in Federal Court as Plaintiff/attorney pro se](see [redacted]) - litigating against those in the Credit/Banking industry. Yet that doesn’t mean that I’m going to give away my time - the only thing I have in/by which to earn a living - to every referral or wronged consumer who walks into or calls my office.
You can’t call yourself a “consumer advocate” if you’re NOT willing to give away at least some of your time to benefit consumers.
Indeed, I’ve never taken a FCRA/TILA/FDCPA case on a contingency fee basis and it is unlikely I ever will. For as you should know as well as anyone, the likelihood - not to mention amount - of recovery of attorney’s fees in these cases is very low, and one has to believe the ultimate (and hopeful) credit improvement and related benefits [e.g. lower interest rates for future borrowing, etc.] are worthwhile enough to pursue [or, in the case of debt collectors, defend] it on an hourly basis.
You certainly have the right to only seek “worthwhile” business, the wealthy consumers—as long as you don’t call yourself “consumer advocate.” But I would NOT hire you—under the LAW a consumer is entitled to recover attorneys fees and nobody should have to PAY anything to get the benefits of COMPLETE and ACCURATE credit reports. If you don’t think that the court’s awards are sufficient, PROVE it. DOCUMENT it. CHANGE the law.
If in fact attorneys can’t survive due to the low attorneys fees awarded by the courts, NACA’s website should change its headline from “know your rights” to “we can’t help most consumers” and document the need for legislative changes.
Instead, NACA MISREPRESENTS the facts and if fails to disclose that most “consumer advocate” attorneys will only represent wealthy consumers and/or with slam dunk claims and huge damages.
The FCRA should have much higher minimum statutory damages, at least $1000 PER willful violation and if legal fees awarded by the courts are too low, that can also be addressed by the legislature. The legislature ought to define “willful” as any incorrect reporting in response to the consumer’s dispute.
I described the issues in more detail at Summary - the lawyers are the last piece in the corruption puzzle, Is there ANY way to fix this broken system?
I could make a good living if I could give legal advice and negotiate settlements for a fee. Almost all my clients (99%) are “Credit Activists” who at minimum allow me to use their credit reports to document credit reporting problems. Some even go further and contact legislators and TRY to make a difference.
NACA attorneys fail to document the systemic violations and fail to reach out to consumers for assistance with legislative changes. That’s because they have a “good thing” going for themselves.
As the record shows, the FCRA has been weakened by the 2003 FACT Act and convoluted with a lot of GARBAGE—collectively all “consumer advocates” were unable to successfully counter the corporate lobbyists and lying executives.
Why doesn’t NACA at least ADMIT it?
A “consumer advocate” ought to care about people with financial and credit problems.
We need legal representation for ALL with claims, a FAIR legal system, resources for pro se litigants, equal rights for all—not just for the wealthy.
NACA miserably fails to do anything for the general public and it is merely a lead generation system for its members.
Update 4/12/07:
Got permission to post the attorney info:
Auden L. Grumet, Esq.
The Law Office of Auden L. Grumet, LLC
http://www.atlantalawyer.org
Physical Office Address:
1718 Peachtree St., N.W.
Peachtree 25th Bldg.
South Tower, Suite 1080
Atlanta, GA 30309
I always redact identifying info, most people want to remain anonymous, but I appreciate it when readers don’t mind disclosing who they are. Really wish I got some comments from NACA too.
One cannot expect a competent solo practitioner to review consumer claims free of charge on a regular basis. But any large firm and especially an organization like NACA ought to have personnel to review the credit disputes and reports and assess the claims AND provide a WRITTEN analysis of the legal claims, maybe for a $50 or so fee.
Over the years I’ve had many readers/clients get free initial consultations, but the attorneys were often completely incompetent (or cream skimming) and falsely stated that there were no FCRA or FDCPA violations. Often it’s probably how they get rid of undesirable clients, I suppose they assess potential clients by their attire, race, car, employment, income ... The working stiffs don’t have high damages, so there won’t be large settlement checks. Just because you get something free, doesn’t mean that it’s good.
NACA and the “consumer advocates” ought to have web pages with information about what constitutes a “desirable” client, explaining the basics, that disputes with creditors don’t get you claims you can sue for, that disputes with collectors must be made in writing, etc.
Legal • NACA - Consumer Lawyers EXPOSED • Corruption • (0) Comments • Permalink
