I am compelled to write in response to the commentary of Michael Harrison, published in this online space on June 29 (in print July 2) (“Calling out Judicial Bias Against Debt Collectors in NJ”). Harrison accuses two U.S. District Judges (including the Chief Judge) and a U.S. Magistrate Judge from the District of New Jersey of what he perceives as “bias” against debt collectors and a “remarkably poor understanding of the purpose of the” Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Harrison’s reckless accusations must be addressed.

Harrison, a collection attorney and debt collector as defined by the FDCPA, has been sued for violations of the act numerous times. Searching PACER reveals around a dozen FDCPA suits in which he was a named defendant. It was a case he lost back in 1991 that led our Court of Appeals to first apply the “least sophisticated consumer” standard to protect debtors from deceptive and misleading collection letters. Graziano v. Harrison, 950 F.2d 107 (3d Cir. 1991).  Over the years, judges including Chief Judge Linares, Judge Vazquez, Judge Walls, and the late Judge Pollak (who authored Graziano) have written opinions finding that his conduct runs afoul of the law. Far from evidence of some “bias,” these decisions evince a serial violator who fails to take seriously the act’s regulation of debt collectors.