Third Circuit Mulls Over Definition Of "Meaningful Attorney Involvement"

On November 10, a New Jersey debt collection law firm pressed the Third Circuit to reverse the district court's ruling that a four-second review of a debt collection complaint does not constitute "meaningful attorney involvement."

As we previously reported, in Bock v. Pressler & Pressler, LLP, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted plaintiff Daniel Bock, Jr.'s motion for summary judgment, finding that defendant Pressler & Pressler LLP violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA") by failing to conduct  a "meaningful review" of a collection action filed in state court.

As background, Pressler originally filed a complaint in New Jersey state court to collect on Bock's credit card debt.  The state action was settled, but while it was pending, Bock filed a federal action against Pressler.  His federal complaint alleged that Pressler made a false or misleading representation in violation of the FDCPA by filing the state