OPINION 506
Collection Letters
Client's Use of Lawyer's
Name and Stationery
Inquirer requests an opinion in a matter involving a variation
of the matters discussed in Opinion 259, 96 N.J.L.J. 754 (1973).
It is not this Committee's function to determine how close to the
wind an attorney may sail in lending his name to a client in its
collection work. He should not do so at all. See Opinion 259.
The procedure suggested in this inquiry, for example, proposes
three form collection letters on the attorney's stationery
representing increasing pressure to pay rising through various
administrative levels of the client. The first threatens that if
the account is not paid, the "National Collection Manager will be
notified;" the second that the "National Collection Manager has
received the account" and threatens that unless it is paid, it may
"be judged uncollectible by Mr. Doe." The final letter states that
the matter has been "referred to me for the purpose of assisting
them in the collection," etc.
All letters are intended to be bulk mailed by the client with
return envelopes addressed, not to the attorney, but to the client.
The inquirer states, however, that he will review the lists and
and accounts at each stage and maintain records and answer "all
questions, phone calls and letters directly". We observe that this
might not occur in practice since the return envelopes are
addressed to the client.
The specific question, however, is - "Could the client
undertake the mailings by its bulk mail system and receive back the
payments?" The answer to the specific question, as a general
proposition is that these elements taken in a vacuum may not be
objectionable. Where, however, the effect of the entire scheme is
that the attorney is allowing his name to be used by his client to
lend "clout" to the collections and where the judgments are being
exercised not by the attorney but by "The National Collection
Manager" or "Mr. Doe" or the client, the practice is still
disapproved.
Opinion 259 remains the guide in this area.