Lesher v. Law Offices of Mitchell N. Kay, PC, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12463

Lesher sued under the FDCPA alleging Kay Law Firm’s debt-collection letters misled him about attorney involvement.
Letters were on Kay Law Firm letterhead; January 11, 2009 letter offered settlement and warned of possible legal action.
February 15, 2009 letter offered repayment or settlement; back page contained disclaimers.
District Court granted Lesher summary judgment on §1692e; found letters misleading despite back-page disclaimers.
Kay Law Firm appealed; Third Circuit affirmed, majority holding letters violated §1692e; Judge Jordan dissenting on the reasoning.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Kay letters violated §1692e by implying attorney involvement	Lesher argued letters suggested attorney involvement	Kay claimed no misrepresentation given disclaimers	Yes, violated §1692e as misleading to least sophisticated debtor
Role of disclaimers on back in mitigating misrepresentation	Disclaimers should negate implied attorney involvement	Disclaimers insufficient to cure the front-page implication	Disclaimers insufficient; letters still misleading
Whether the least sophisticated debtor standard supports liability here	Standard protects consumers, including gullible readers	Standard requires careful reading; disclaimers should suffice	Yes, liability supported under least sophisticated standard

Brown v. Card Service Center, 464 F.3d 450 (3d Cir. 2006) (broadened interpretation of §1692e(5) regarding potential legal action)
Clomon v. Jackson, 988 F.2d 1314 (2d Cir. 1993) (false implication that communication is from an attorney)
Rosenau v. Unifund Corp., 539 F.3d 218 (3d Cir. 2008) (attorney involvement not required; disclaimer analysis)
Greco v. Trauner, Cohen & Thomas, LLP, 412 F.3d 360 (2d Cir. 2005) (disclaimer can negate implied attorney involvement)
Gonzalez v. Kay, 577 F.3d 600 (5th Cir. 2009) (disclaimer placement on back vs front; impact on least sophisticated debtor)