Title: Collection Center, Inc. v. State Through Collection Agency Bd.,

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Collection Center, Inc. v. State Through Collection Agency Bd.,1991 WY 54809 P.2d 278Case Number: 90-186Decided: 04/18/1991Supreme Court of Wyoming
COLLECTION CENTER, INC., 
Petitioner (Petitioner/Contestee),

v.

STATE of Wyoming, acting Through 
the COLLECTION AGENCY BOARD, Respondent (Respondent/Complainant).

Appeal from the First 
Judicial District Court, LaramieCounty.

Affirmed.

Robert A. Monteith, 
Rawlins, for petitioner.

Joseph B. Meyer, Atty. 
Gen., Sylvia Hackl, Deputy Atty. Gen., Hugh Kenny, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., 
Cheyenne, for respondent.

Before URBIGKIT, C.J., 
and THOMAS, CARDINE, MACY and GOLDEN, JJ.

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶1.]     Collection Center, Inc. 
appeals from an order of the Wyoming Collection Agency Board (Board), issued 
after a hearing on the matter, that CollectionCenter cease and desist all advertising 
regarding its ability to provide legal services, including the distribution of 
the materials presented as exhibits at the hearing. CollectionCenter sought review of the administrative 
decision in the district court and subsequently moved to have the matter 
certified to this court. The state concurred in that motion, and the district 
court granted it.

[¶2.]     CollectionCenter frames the issues:

I.

     Does Wyoming Statute 
33-11-114 (1977) contravene the United States Constitution by its prohibition of 
truthful and not misleading commercial speech?

II.

     Does Wyoming Statute 
33-11-114 (1977) contravene the Wyoming Constitution by its prohibition of 
truthful and not misleading speech?

The Board consolidates 
these issues into a single question:

     Does W.S. 33-11-114 
(1977) violate the United 
States and Wyoming Constitutions by its 
prohibition of advertisement of a collection agency's ability to provide legal 
services?

[¶3.]     We affirm the decision 
of the Wyoming Collection Agency Board. 

FACTS

[¶4.]     CollectionCenter is a Rawlins based collection 
agency, d/b/a Credit Collection Bureau of Carbon County. Over a year before this 
action was initiated CollectionCenter prepared an advertising brochure 
and printed 100 copies. CollectionCenter's general manager, Linda Russell, 
admitted the brochure had been distributed to solicit clients. The brochure, 
composed of several parts, stated at different places in the material that 
CollectionCenter did not charge 
increased rates for accounts requiring litigation, that it had its own in-house 
staff attorneys and legal department to serve clients' interests, and that it 
would advance all court costs.1

[¶5.]     Collection Center, as a 
collection agency, is made subject to the Board's regulation by an act entitled 
Collection Agencies, codified at W.S. 33-11-101 through 116 (June 1987 Repl.). 
W.S. 33-11-114 states:

     No licensee, under 
the terms of this act [§§ 33-11-101 through 33-11-116] shall render legal 
services or advertise directly or indirectly, that it will render legal 
services, but any licensee can solicit claims exclusively for the purpose of 
collection, take assignments thereof for the purpose of collection by suit or 
otherwise, and for such purpose, shall be deemed to be the real party in 
interest in any suit brought upon such assigned claim.

(emphasis 
added).

[¶6.]     Another Wyoming collection agency, believing CollectionCenter's advertising brochure violated 
W.S. 33-11-114's prohibition of advertising of legal services, requested that 
the Board review the material and determine whether it violated the statute and 
should be acted upon by the Board. After review at a regularly scheduled meeting 
the Board issued a notice and order to CollectionCenter requiring that it stop distribution of the 
material and informing CollectionCenter of its right to a hearing. 
CollectionCenter requested and was 
granted its hearing, following which the cease and desist order now appealed 
from was issued.

DISCUSSION

[¶7.]     The Board simply ruled 
on the question whether CollectionCenter's solicitation violated the 
provisions of W.S. 33-11-114, concluding that it did. It did not consider the 
question, raised for the first time in the hearing before the Board, of the 
constitutionality of the statutory ban on any advertising of legal services by 
collection agencies, expressly leaving that question to the 
judiciary.

[¶8.]     CollectionCenter now argues that the prohibition of 
advertising of legal services by collection agencies in W.S. 33-11-114 is 
unconstitutional. We agree that, if collection agencies could lawfully provide 
legal services, this court would have to consider CollectionCenter's arguments that its brochure is 
entitled to limited protection as commercial speech and that truthful commercial 
advertising of its services is protected by the first amendment of the United 
States Constitution. See Posadas De Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of 
Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328, 106 S. Ct. 2968, 92 L. Ed. 2d 266 (1986); Bolger v. 
Youngs Drug Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 103 S. Ct. 2875, 77 L. Ed. 2d 469 (1983); 
Central Hudson Gas v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S. Ct. 2343, 65 L. Ed. 2d 341 (1980). However, collection agencies cannot, by law, 
provide such services. 

[¶9.]     W.S. 33-11-114 
proscribes not only the advertising of, but also the very provision of, legal 
services by collection agencies. We recognize that "statutes are to be presumed 
constitutional unless affirmatively shown to be otherwise, and one who would 
deny the constitutionality of a statute has a heavy burden. The alleged 
unconstitutionality must be clearly and exactly shown beyond any reasonable 
doubt." Mills v. Reynolds & Marks, Bunker v. Niggemyer, 807 P.2d 383 
(Wyo. 1991). 
CollectionCenter does not allege or 
argue there is a constitutional defect in this statutory limitation on its 
business operations, so we must presume the prohibition against collection 
agencies rendering legal services is constitutional.

[¶10.]  Consequently, the issue before this court 
is not whether this solicitation meets the standards for protected commercial 
speech delineated in the cases cited by CollectionCenter, but instead whether advertising of 
unlawful activity merits any constitutional protection. CollectionCenter in effect argues that advertisement 
of illegal services is entitled to the constitutional protections afforded 
commercial speech. Clearly, it is wrong. There is no constitutional right to 
advertise a willingness to engage in illegal activity, and the government may 
ban commercial speech related to illegal activity. Bolger, 463 U.S.  at 69, 103 S. Ct.  at 
2881, 77 L. Ed. 2d  at 479; Central Hudson Gas, 447 U.S.  at 564, 100 S. Ct.  at 2350, 65 L. Ed. 2d  at 350. For this reason CollectionCenter has no right to advertise that it 
offers legal services.

[¶11.]  Assuming that its materials are not 
misleading or deceptive, CollectionCenter may certainly advertise that it has 
the ability to take assignment of debts and proceed as the party in interest on 
those debts, as this activity is authorized in W.S. 33-11-114. Bolger, 463 U.S.  at 69, 103 S. Ct.  at 
2881, 77 L. Ed. 2d  at 479; Central Hudson Gas, 447 U.S.  at 564, 100 S. Ct.  at 2350, 65 L. Ed. 2d  at 350. However, if that was the purpose of CollectionCenter's brochure, the Board made no 
finding regarding whether the material is deceptive. If its purpose is to inform 
clients of CollectionCenter's ability to take assignment of 
debts, we hold the brochure is misleading and not entitled to any constitutional 
protection. The message conveyed by the contested advertisement is that 
Collection Center had legal services available to offer to its clients as part 
of its debt collection services, and not that the agency was able to take 
assignment of debts. As "[t]he state may deal effectively with false, deceptive, 
or misleading sales techniques," Bolger, 463 U.S.  at 69, 103 S. Ct.  at 2881, 77 L. Ed. 2d  at 479, the Board may properly order Collection Center to stop 
distributing this brochure even if it is assumed that it was only meant to 
advertise Collection Center's capacity to take assignment of debts, and not an 
ability to render legal services.

[¶12.]  CollectionCenter may not advertise that it provides 
legal services. If the contested advertisement was an attempt to inform 
potential clients of the services authorized by W.S. 33-11-114, it was 
misleading and has no constitutional protection.

[¶13.]  Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1 The disputed brochure, 
Exhibit B-4, contained the following materials:

Exhibit B-1, a page 
inserted into the brochure, includes a category labelled "CollectionCenter's Legal Services" in a flow chart describing 
CollectionCenter's operations. The 
"synopsis" of this service states, "[w]e have our own legal department and 
in-house staff attorney if needed. We also advance all court costs."

Exhibit B-2, another page 
insert titled "Why Choose Us?" states the following: "Lawsuits: No increase in 
rates for accounts requiring litigation. We have our own STAFF attorneys and 
legal department. Collectioncenter fronts all court costs and fees."

Exhibit B-3, a smaller 
brochure inserted within the large brochure, says in pertinent part: "OUR OWN 
LEGAL DEPARTMENT is available, if needed, to see that your interests are best 
served should the collection process reach the point that legal action must be 
taken. WE ADVANCE ALL COURT COSTS"