News & Resources

SESSIONS, ISRAEL & SHARTLE is delighted to announce that three of our partners, David Israel (employment), Bryan C. Shartle (commercial litigation), and David R. Clouston (commercial litigation), have been recognized as The Best Lawyers® in America for 2024. Our partner Whitney White (commercial litigation) was recognized as Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America for 2024.

Two years ago, the ACA, several debt collectors, debt buyers and a debt collection law firm filed a lawsuit through Sessions, Israel & Shartle, LLC and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP seeking to prohibit S.B. 248 from becoming effective. 

What happens when you credit report information by mistake, follow the Fair Credit Reporting Act and fix it? One court finds that e-OSCAR worked and there was no liability ruling with a furnisher’s timely FCRA 30-day response.

Sessions, Israel & Shartle proudly announces that for the fifth year running Whitney White, a partner in our Dallas Office, has been named by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in Consumer Law.

While most are still recovering from the 11/10/21 Reg. F deadline and the time, effort and expense of gearing up, we all believed that once the work was done, we would have clear rules and a “safe harbor” that would result in fewer silly lawsuits – especially with the Model Notice. Wrong!

What happens when a debt collector sends a letter to a lawyer on behalf of that lawyer’s debtor-client, and the letter potentially violates the FDCPA? According to one court in New York, nothing.

In a first, a Chancery Court judge for Cook County, Illinois has ruled that an opt-opt notice contained within a collection e-mail satisfied Reg. F’s dual requirements of describing a simple opt out process and providing a clear and conspicuous opt-out disclosure.

In a contract dispute, not a consumer defense case, a federal trial court in Illinois just confirmed what was suspected but not entirely clear in Regulation F – the CFPB model notice is more of a suggestion than a legal requirement.

Is this the new Hunstein, where a widely used practice generally accepted as compliant suddenly becomes a risk? A federal trial court in Chicago concluded that a debt collector could be violating the FDCPA when broadcasting a local area code on its Caller ID when the caller did not have a physical presence in that area.