Consumer complaint received 2025-08-08 00:00:00
Product: Debt collection — Auto debt
Issue: Written notification about debt — Didn't receive notice of right to dispute
Company: Robinson & Hoover
State: TX

Complaint narrative:
CFPB Complaint Misconduct by Debt XXXX  Attorney ( XX/XX/XXXX Hearing ) Background I am filing this complaint to report unethical and misleading conduct by XXXX XXXX XXXX, an attorney with XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX  ), during a court hearing related to a debt collection case on XX/XX/XXXX. I am a consumer debtor ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) who has been subject to XXXX collection efforts on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The hearing in question was part of the legal proceedings to collect an alleged debt ( a deficiency balance from an auto loan ). I attended this hearing pro XXXX ( without an attorney ) to explain my situation and hardship, but XXXX XXXX conduct during the proceeding was highly improper. 

This complaint focuses on XXXX key issues from that hearing : Misleading statements about my residence : XXXX XXXX falsely claimed I said I was only visiting my sisters home and asserted that XXXX XXXX confirm an address for me. 
Dismissal of financial hardship : She openly dismissed my financial difficulties, even stating that my efforts to support my college-bound child were merely a choice, not a real hardship. 
Downplaying wage garnishment harm : She minimized the impact of the ongoing {$170.00} per paycheck wage garnishment, implying that this amount was trivial and not harmful to me. 

Taken together, these actions show a pattern of misrepresentation, unprofessionalism, and unfair treatment of a consumer in a court proceeding. I am requesting that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau investigate this attorneys conduct and XXXX broader courtroom practices for potential violations of consumer protection laws and professional ethics. Below I provide details on each issue, why I believe its abusive or misleading, and how it fits into a broader pattern of legal bullying by XXXX 

Misleading Statements About My Address During the XX/XX/XXXX hearing, XXXX XXXX mischaracterized my living situation to the court. She claimed that I had stated I was only visiting my sisters residence, insinuating that I had no permanent address and that XXXX  was unable to confirm where I live. This is a false and misleading statement. In reality, I have been residing with my sister out of necessity due to XXXX XXXX  I was not merely a short-term visitor. I provided XXXX and the court with accurate contact information. There was no legitimate basis for the attorney to suggest that I was transient or hiding my address. 

Knowingly giving false or distorted information to a court is a serious ethical violation. Attorneys have a duty of candor toward the tribunal, meaning they must not make false statements of fact to a judge. XXXX XXXX statement about my address was not only untrue, but it painted me in a negative light as if I were evading contact which could unfairly prejudice my case. I felt this was a deliberate attempt to mislead the judge and discredit me. 

Its worth noting that this address-related misrepresentation is not an isolated incident for XXXX. In a recent federal case ( XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ), a consumer alleged that XXXX intentionally provided incorrect addresses to a process server in order to secure a default judgment without the debtors knowledge. In that case, the plaintiff ( XXXX ) had actually lived at her current address all along, and XXXX knew or should have known it, yet XXXX agent swore she couldnt be found leading to a default judgment that the consumer discovered only later. The complaint in XXXX even described XXXX conduct as malicious, accusing the firm of intentionally using bad addresses to prevent proper notice. This pattern is eerily similar to what happened in my hearing : XXXX  attorney claimed inability to confirm my address despite having my information, thereby casting me as unreachable or uncooperative. Such behavior, if deliberate, represents an unfair and deceptive practice in debt collection. It violates the spirit of honesty expected in court and potentially the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ( FDCPA ) provisions against false or misleading representations. 

Dismissing My Financial Hardship as a Choice Another troubling incident was XXXX XXXX dismissive response to my explanation of financial hardship. I told the court that I am struggling to keep up with the debt because I am XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Rather than show any understanding, XXXX XXXX retorted that my decision to help my XXXX  child was a choice. In context, her tone was derisive effectively suggesting that my hardship is self-inflicted or not worthy of consideration because I chose to support my childs education. 

I found this remark highly unprofessional and insulting. Supporting ones child XXXX XXXX is not a frivolous choice it is a normal parental responsibility and a matter of necessity for the childs future. I was raising a genuine issue of financial strain, which is directly relevant in a debt collection context ( for instance, when discussing ability to pay or the impact of garnishment on my family ). Instead of addressing this respectfully, the attorney essentially shamed me for prioritizing my child. This tactic felt like an attempt to undermine my credibility and to persuade the court that my hardship should be ignored. 

Such behavior raises concerns under professional ethics and fairness to consumers. An attorney should not ridicule or belittle a debtor for their family obligations. While vigorous representation of a clients interests is expected, there is a line between advocacy and harassment or abuse. The FDCPA prohibits debt XXXX from engaging in harassing or oppressive conduct ( 1692d ) and from using unfair or unconscionable means to collect a debt ( 1692f ). While XXXX XXXX comment XXXX have been XXXX as a legal argument, its effect was to harass and humiliate. It shows a lack of basic respect and could be seen as an attempt to psychologically pressure me in a courtroom setting. This contributes to an atmosphere of XXXX XXXX, where the consumer debtor is made to feel ashamed for circumstances that are in fact common and understandable. 

Downplaying the Harm of a {$170.00} Wage Garnishment Perhaps most alarming was how XXXX XXXX minimized the impact of the ongoing wage garnishment against me. Currently, XXXX ( on behalf of XXXX XXXX XXXX ) is garnishing {$170.00} from each of my paychecks. For me, as a single income earner with substantial family responsibilities, this is a significant loss of income. I tried to convey to the court that this garnishment amount ( taken from every check ) is causing serious financial strain affecting my ability to pay rent, utilities, and other essentials. 

XXXX XXXX, however, downplayed this harm, suggesting that {$170.00} per paycheck was not a big deal or not enough to warrant relief. I was stunned by the lack of empathy and the disregard for how garnishment truly impacts consumers. A sum of {$170.00} per pay period is far from trivial. In fact, under Oklahoma law ( and federal law via the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX ), up to 25 % of a debtors disposable weekly earnings can be taken via wage garnishment. Taking one-quarter of someones paycheck can absolutely destabilize their finances and push them into hardship. Even amounts less than the maximum can cause undue stress and make it difficult to cover basic expenses. According to a report by the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, wage garnishment often can cause undue stress and bury you deeper into financial hardship. For many Americans living paycheck-to-paycheck, losing even a small portion of income can lead to missed bills or inability to afford necessities. 

By brushing off the harm of the garnishment, the attorney ignored the real-world consequences on me and my family. This attitude is not only callous ; its also indicative of a broader strategy to trivialize the consumers plight in order to justify aggressive collection. It felt as though XXXX XXXX was telling the court that I was overreacting, when in truth the law firm was taking a significant chunk of my pay regularly. This kind of minimization is an unfair practice, as it attempts to gloss over the very consumer protections that limit garnishment for the sake of peoples livelihood. The FDCPAs purpose is to eliminate abusive debt collection practices and protect consumers from unjust harm. An attorney who casually suggests that stripping away part of someones paycheck is inconsequential is not acting in the spirit of fair or responsible debt collection. 

Concerns About XXXX XXXX and Unfair Treatment The incidents above demonstrate a pattern of behavior that is unprofessional, unethical, and abusive toward me as a consumer debtor. Misrepresenting facts to the court, dismissing genuine hardship, and making light of a legally-sanctioned XXXX of wages all point to a disrespect for both truth and fairness. Such conduct XXXX violate the standards set by both legal ethics rules and consumer protection laws : Misrepresentation/Candor : As noted, attorneys must not lie or mislead in court. Providing false information ( e.g., about my address or statements I allegedly made ) breaches the duty of candor. It also potentially violates FDCPA 1692e, which forbids false or misleading representations in connection with debt collection. In my case, the misleading statement aimed to portray me as someone who can not be contacted or trusted, which could influence the judges decisions. This is unfair to me and corrupts the integrity of the process. 
XXXX XXXX : The XXXX  remark about my family being a choice crosses a line into personal ridicule. FDCPA XXXX692d prohibits conduct the natural consequence of which is to harass, oppress, or abuse any person in debt collection. Making me feel ashamed for supporting my child was unnecessary and served no purpose other than to intimidate and emotionally distress me. Consumers in debt should still be treated with dignity ; being in debt is not a moral failing that deserves scorn in a courtroom. 
Unfair or Unconscionable Means : Downplaying the impact of garnishment, in context, was an attempt to deny the reality of my financial hardship and push forward an aggressive collection despite the harm. This goes against the notion of treating consumers fairly. Its well documented that wage garnishment can wreak havoc on a persons finances, yet the attorney spoke as if I shouldnt be hurting at all. Such a stance could be seen as an attempt to deceive the court into thinking the garnishment is harmless, thereby justifying continued or increased collection actions. Using the legal process in a way that neglects the human impact can rise to the level of being unconscionable, especially if the goal is to bulldoze any objections or pleas for relief. 

In sum, XXXX XXXX conduct during the hearing was extremely unfair to me as a consumer. I left the courtroom feeling not only defeated but also disrespected and misled. I believe any objective observer would question whether this behavior meets the standards expected of officers of the court, or the standards set by consumer protection laws. 

Pattern of Legal XXXX XXXX XXXX  My experience with XXXX  appears to be part of a broader pattern of aggressive and abusive tactics this firm employs against consumers. I have since learned that multiple complaints and lawsuits have arisen involving XXXX debt collection practices, reinforcing my concerns that XXXX engages in legal bullying. For context : Numerous Consumer Complaints : The XXXX XXXX XXXX reports XXXX complaints against XXXX in the past 3 years ( XXXX in the last XXXX XXXX alone ). Many of these complaints describe troubling conduct. For example, XXXX consumer in XX/XX/XXXX alleged that XXXX unlawfully and knowingly garnished 25 % of their paycheck and refused to communicate or respond to the consumers attempts to resolve the debt, calling the firms actions unfair under [ the ] XXXX XXXX.. Another consumer reported being subjected to 11 years of on-and-off wage garnishments by XXXX, during which interest accumulated astronomically a debt that started around {$2000.00} had ballooned to over {$22000.00} due to interest and fees. That complaint also noted the person was never properly served ( only learning of actions through employer notices ) and that XXXX was unresponsive to information requests. These accounts paint a picture of a firm that uses the courts and garnishments in a punitive, relentless manner, without proper transparency or fairness to the consumer. 
FDCPA Lawsuits Against RHF : Beyond informal complaints, XXXX  practices have been challenged in court by other consumers. In early XXXX, a class-action lawsuit was filed ( XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX on behalf of a group of consumers alleging abusive debt collection tactics by XXXX. That case centered on the kind of default judgment tricks I referenced earlier ( sewer service and obtaining judgments without proper notice ). Additionally, in XXXX, another consumer ( XXXX XXXX XXXX ) filed a federal lawsuit under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Court records show that case involved XXXX XXXX XXXX as the original creditor and included allegations that XXXX obtained a default judgment by publication notice and then pursued wage garnishment across state lines. The very exhibits in the XXXX case ( such as an Affidavit of Due Diligence and Motion to Enter Default Judgment without Notice ) suggest a scenario where XXXX might have claimed inability to locate the consumer to justify not giving proper notice, and then moved straight to default and garnishment. This is strikingly similar to the misrepresentation about address that I encountered and underscores that XXXX tactics are systematic. 
XXXX XXXX as a XXXX XXXX : XXXX is a debt collection law firm that regularly sues consumers to collect debts on behalf of creditors. By their own acknowledgement, they operate as an agent for their client and seek judgments for the full balance plus fees and high interest. XXXX is very much a third-party debt collector subject to the FDCPAs requirements. Unfortunately, their pattern of conduct as evidenced by my experience and those of others suggests they XXXX skirt these requirements and rely on the intimidation factor of lawsuits and court orders. The term lXXXX XXXX comes to mind : using the legal system not just to collect what is owed, but to overwhelm and intimidate consumers so they feel they have no voice or rights. 

In my case, the misleading statements and disrespectful treatment during the hearing made me feel exactly that bullied and powerless. I worry that many other consumers in Oklahoma ( and even in other states ) are being steamrolled by XXXX  in similar ways : getting hit with default judgments without proper process, facing wage garnishments that cripple their finances, and being treated without basic respect or honesty in court. This goes against the very purpose of our consumer protection laws. The FDCPA was enacted to ensure debt XXXX do not abuse or mistreat consumers, and to prevent exactly the kind of unscrupulous tactics that XXXX is accused of employing. Yet, without oversight, a firm like this can leverage the courts to its advantage and push consumers into corners, as I have personally experienced. 

Desired Resolution and Action Requested I respectfully request the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to investigate and take appropriate action regarding the conduct described above. Specifically, I ask that the CFPB : Investigate Attorney XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX at the XX/XX/XXXX hearing for potential violations of federal consumer financial laws ( such as the FDCPA ). Making misleading statements in a debt collection proceeding and engaging in harassing or abusive behavior towards a consumer debtor could constitute violations that fall under the CFPBs purview. Her actions should be reviewed in light of the FDCPAs provisions against false, deceptive, or unfair practices. 
Examine XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX overall courtroom and collection practices. I urge the XXXX to look beyond this XXXX incident and evaluate whether XXXX  patterns default judgments without proper notice, long-term garnishments with mounting interest, refusal to communicate with debtors, and disrespectful treatment in litigation amount to systemic abuse. If a pattern of legal bullying or bad-faith litigation tactics is found, the CFPB should use its authority to enforce the law, which might include sanctions, consent orders, or referrals to other regulators ( such as state bar associations or state attorneys general ) as appropriate. 
Ensure consumer protection and fair treatment. As a desired outcome, I want XXXX ( and its attorneys ) to be held accountable and compelled to treat consumers lawfully and ethically. This could mean requiring the firm to cease any deceptive or unfair practices, provide proper notice and communication to consumers, and train their staff on compliance with the FDCPA and professional ethics. In my specific case, I also seek relief from the aggressive collection tactics for instance, a reevaluation of the garnishment in light of my hardship, conducted fairly and without misrepresentations. More broadly, I hope the CFPBs intervention will prevent other consumers from suffering the kind of mistreatment I experienced. 

In conclusion, what happened to me in court on XX/XX/XXXX was not just a personal slight it was part of a larger abusive debt collection practice that needs to be addressed. No consumer should have to endure being misled or demeaned by a debt XXXX attorney in a courtroom. By taking action, the CFPB can help ensure that debt collection firms like XXXX uphold the law and respect consumers rights and dignity during the legal process. Thank you for your attention to this serious matter. 

Sources : XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX Order on Motion to Dismiss ( XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX ). ( Allegations of XXXX using incorrect addresses to obtain default judgments ; court discussion of FDCPA purpose to eliminate abusive practices. ) XXXX. XXXX Complaint against XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX ( XX/XX/XXXX ) and ( XX/XX/XXXX ). ( XXXX reports of unfair garnishment practices, lack of communication, and decade-long collection efforts with huge interest accrual. ) XXXX. Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule XXXX Candor Toward the XXXX. ( Prohibits attorneys from making false statements of fact to a court. ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX Firm All You Need to Know About Wage Garnishment ( XXXX ). ( Explains that wage garnishment can take a significant portion of income and push people into financial hardship. ) XXXX. XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX website / Consumer advice article. ( Confirms XXXX is a debt collector subject to FDCPA and that they pursue full judgments with interest on behalf of creditors. ) XXXX. XXXX XXXX XXXX, XXXX XXXX XXXX, PLLC Complaint ( XXXX. XXXX filed XX/XX/XXXX ). ( FDCPA lawsuit involving XXXX and XXXX XXXX XXXX ; references to default judgment by publication and garnishment. ) XXXX. XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. ( Shows XXXX consumer complaints in last XXXX years, indicating a pattern of issues reported by consumers. )

Company public response: Company believes it acted appropriately as authorized by contract or law
Company response to consumer: Closed with explanation