Question

In Heintz v. Jenkins, the court had to determine whether an attorney representing his client is a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and found:
A.An attorney does not fall under the statute because the 1986 repeal of the attorney exemption was not effective because Congress made the repeal a sweeping one and did not fill in voids left in the statute, thus making the repeal void.
B.An attorney who seeks to collect loans through litigation is not "in the business of debt collection" but is instead "in the business of practicing law" and is therefore exempt from the statute.
C.The fact that the consumer was in default on the loan bars her from suing the lawyer because she too was at fault.
D.Lawyers who regularly collect debts through litigation are subject to the provisions of the FDCPA.

Answer

This answer is hidden. It contains 2 characters.