About Me

My motto is Making the Law Work for You. This means that I search for all claims and defenses that are legally or contractually available to my clients.

For example, many of my clients have been sued to collect various debts. Most lawyers would start and stop with the issue of whether the client owed the debt. For me, that is just the beginning.

I look at the contract and applicable statutes and laws to determine whether the plaintiff creditor has added fees, charges, or interest that violate the underlying loan, contract, or applicable law. If so, I can use these illegal charges as the basis of a counterclaim against the creditor for any number of violations of consumer protection laws such as the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Telecommunication Protection Act, etc. Often a strong counterclaim can get rid of the debt and lawsuit against my client in toto. These tactics are particularly effective in defense of auto-deficiency actions.

To obtain a deficiency judgment against a consumer in connection with a defaulted vehicle loan, the secured creditor has the burden of proving that it disposed of a repossessed vehicle in a commercially reasonable manner. This is a vulnerable point of leverage. Secured creditors frequently cut corners and fail to credit a consumer’s account with unearned fees and charges. I dig for evidence that proves the secured creditor failed to dispose of the vehicle at issue in a commercially reasonable manner. This evidence develops counterclaims and a defense that ends in a dismissal or verdict in my client’s favor.

I am extremely aggressive in advocating for the rights of my clients. And often, I can represent my clients for a modest or even no-up front fee when I can develop claims and counterclaims that include attorney-fee shifting provisions that require the defendant to pay my fees and costs.

My aggressive approach is necessary to combat the judicial and legal bias that is inherent in debt collection cases. Businesses are allowed and expected to take advantage of any provision in a contract or law that benefits the business. But judges and cases often impose a moral component of “fairness” on consumers. This comes part and parcel with the reality that most judges only care whether a consumer owes the debt and have little concern about abusive practices by businesses and lenders.

It’s like this: A consumer loan company overcharges a consumer $15 for credit-life insurance in a personal loan. This is unlawful and makes the loan void. Many courts would see this as a de minis violation and ignore it. But a consumer who stops paying a loan because of loss of a job or sudden illness is a deadbeat with no defense based on these circumstances outside of his or her control. I believe and practice my cases with the overriding philosophy that consumers and businesses should be treated the same. Morality and fairness apply to neither. All the matters is what the law and the contract says.