## Facts

- Two consumer debtors received initial debt-collection letters signed “Wexler & Wexler,” a law practice operated by attorney Norman P. Wexler.
- The debtors sued under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging the letters misleadingly implied attorney involvement.
- The theory was that no attorney meaningfully reviewed their individual files before the letters were sent, making the attorney signature/letterhead deceptive.
- Wexler moved for summary judgment and submitted an affidavit stating that a lawyer reviews each file before the first letter is sent and that Wexler personally reviewed the plaintiffs’ files before approving the letters.
- The plaintiffs did not submit direct evidence that their files were not reviewed; they relied on alleged errors or inconsistencies to argue the claimed review was a sham.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Wexler, and the plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that the attorney-signed collection letters falsely implied meaningful attorney review, violating 15 U.S.C. § 1692e(3) and § 1692e(10).
2. Whether plaintiffs’ circumstantial arguments about errors and office practices were enough to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Wexler.
- The court accepted that sending attorney-letterhead dunning letters without attorney review can violate the FDCPA.
- On this record, however, Wexler’s affidavit established attorney review, and plaintiffs failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury could find the review did not occur or was illusory.
- Speculation and generalized credibility attacks were insufficient to create a triable issue.

## Legal Principles

- FDCPA § 1692e prohibits false, deceptive, or misleading representations in debt collection; § 1692e(3) bars falsely implying a communication is from an attorney; § 1692e(10) bars deceptive means to collect a debt.
- A collection letter on attorney letterhead carries an implication of attorney involvement and can be misleading if no meaningful attorney review occurred.
- A debt-collection attorney may violate § 1692e(3) and § 1692e(10) by sending attorney-signed dunning letters without reviewing the creditor’s claim.
- At summary judgment, an FDCPA plaintiff must produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact; conjecture based on alleged inconsistencies, without supporting proof of nonreview, does not suffice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld judgment for the debt-collection attorney because, although the FDCPA forbids attorney-letterhead collection letters that falsely imply attorney review, the plaintiffs did not present evidence sufficient to dispute the sworn showing that an attorney reviewed their files before the letters were sent.


Boyd v. Wexler, 275 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2001)