Class Action Claims Houslanger & Associates Misled Pro Se Litigants Regarding Legal Counsel

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

In a proposed class action, a New York woman alleges debt collector law firm Houslanger & Associates, PLLC and two of the firm’s attorneys routinely misrepresent to pro se litigants that they may not seek legal help in any way except by fully engaging an attorney in their cases.

Behind the lawsuit is a collection action the firm filed against the plaintiff in 2009 for which she says she was never served a summons and complaint nor notice of the subsequent default judgment that was entered against her in April 2010. When she did finally receive notice of the judgment in July 2018, the woman moved pro se to have it vacated, according to the lawsuit. In response, the case goes on, one of the defendant attorneys filed an Affirmation in Opposition, in which he noted his suspicion that the woman’s court documents were ghostwritten and warned that receiving any assistance from undisclosed counsel was “unethical” under New York law.

As the plaintiff’s case proceeded, Houslanger allegedly continued to represent to her that it was “improper” and “unethical” for her to consult “in any way” with an attorney absent the attorney’s “full engagement and appearance” in the case. This lawsuit argues that the firm’s representations were false and misleading, noting that the cases Houslanger cited in support of its argument were from the 1970s and that the American bar had since “changed its attitude” regarding ghostwriting and limited purpose representation.

“Contrary to Attorney Bryks and the Houslanger Firm's assertions, New York State's ethics rules in fact explicitly approve of both ghostwriting and undisclosed, limited purpose engagements related to active litigation matters,” the complaint attests.

The lawsuit argues that the defendant’s deceptions were meant to intimidate pro se litigants into agreeing to “unjust and unfair” settlements on less favorable terms than they would otherwise accept. The firm’s actions, the case points out, were particularly egregious because for consumers to “unravel the deceptiveness” of the defendants’ claims, they would likely need to speak with an attorney.