This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Vincent Howard, Lawrence W. Williamson, Howard Law, P.C., The Williamson Law Firm, LLC, and Williamson & Howard, LLP

Published: May 10, 2019 | Result Date: Mar. 27, 2019 | Filing Date: Jan. 30, 2017 |

Case number: 8:17-cv-00161-JLS-JEM Settlement –  $35,256,275

Judge

Josephine L. Staton

Mediator

Margaret Levy

Court

CD CA


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Amy N. Radon
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Jan Singelmann
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Amanda C. Roberson
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Kristin L. Bateman
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Kevin E. Friedl
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Patricia S. Hilfinger-Pardo
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)

Leanne E. Hartmann
(Consumer Financial Protection Bureau)


Defendant

Vincent D. Howard
(Howard Law PC)


Facts

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau filed suit against Vincent Howard, Lawrence Williamson, Howard Law PC, The Williamson Law Firm LLC, and Williamson & Howard LLP, in relation to defendants' fee collection practices.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: The Bureau alleged defendants operated a debt relief scheme by collecting exorbitant and illegal advance fees from consumers, soliciting consumers with large sums of debt and promising that defendants' lawyers would achieve affordable repayment options. The Bureau further claimed defendants collected millions of dollars in unlawful fees pursuant to this scheme, and defendants often failed to settle consumers' debts whatsoever. As such, the Bureau brought suit under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act, the Telemarketing Sales Rule, and various sections of the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010.

DEFENDANTS' CONTENTIONS: Defendants neither admitted nor denied the Bureau's allegations.

Result

A consent decree to which the Bureau and defendants agreed was issued to resolve all disputes between the parties arising from the conduct alleged in the Bureau's complaint. Pursuant to the consent decree, defendants agreed to cease various telemarketing and debt relief products and services, along with ceasing their offering of consumer financial products or services. Defendants also agreed to pay over $35.25 million to redress affected consumers for unlawful advance fees they previously paid defendants. In addition, defendants agreed to pay a civil penalty of $40 million to the Bureau, but full payment would be suspended upon defendants' satisfaction of various obligations set forth in the consent decree.


#131733

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390