7-21-10 Finance, Administration and Economic Development

Transcription

City of Overland Park, Kansas
Qualifications to Provide Legal Services for the Collection of
Delinquent Court Fines and Costs
Due Date: February 8, 2010
Contact
Scott McGlasson
Managing Partner
816.472.4333
© 2010
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP
Scarritt Arcade Bldg., 819 Walnut, Suite 309, Kansas City, MO 64106 • Phone 816.472.4333
CONTENTS
Chapter 1 – RFQ Item 4.2
Minimum Qualifications and Requirements
Responding to RFQ Requirements ............................................................................. 1
3.1.A. Firm’s Relationship with Overland Park ........................................................... 3
3.1.B. Licensed in the State of Kansas ....................................................................... 3
3.1.C. Ability to Collect Debt Nationwide..................................................................... 3
3.1.D. Knowledge of State and Federal Laws ............................................................. 4
3.1.E. Ability to Handle a High Volume of Accounts.................................................... 5
3.1.F. Initial Programming and Technical Support ...................................................... 5
3.1.G. Safeguarding Individuals and Data................................................................... 7
3.1.H. Compliance with Kansas Statute .................................................................... 10
3.1.I. Collection Experience for Over Three Years.................................................... 10
3.1.J. Felony Charges ............................................................................................... 11
3.2.A. Project Personnel............................................................................................ 11
3.2.B. The Firm’s Court Fees and Fines Clients ....................................................... 12
3.2.C. Three Comparable Contracts and Client References..................................... 20
3.2.D. Surety Bond Filing .......................................................................................... 21
3.2.E. Secretary of State Registration ....................................................................... 21
3.2.F. Accepting Reports in Electronic Format.......................................................... 21
3.2.G. Ensuring Confidentiality.................................................................................. 21
3.2.H. Payment Card Industry Compliance ............................................................... 21
3.2.I. Disputes and Complaints Process ................................................................... 23
3.2.J. Remittance of Payments ................................................................................. 26
3.2.K. Reporting Schedule ........................................................................................ 26
3.2.L. Monthly Status Reports ................................................................................... 26
3.2.M. Additional Reports .......................................................................................... 26
3.2.N. Special Reports .............................................................................................. 27
3.2.O. Account Settlement for Full Amount ............................................................... 27
3.2.P. Uncollected or Recalled Accounts .................................................................. 28
3.2.Q. Commencing Services within Thirty Days ...................................................... 28
3.2.R. Planned Legal Action on an Account.............................................................. 28
3.2.S. Returning Recalled Accounts.......................................................................... 28
3.2.T. Returning Accounts at Termination................................................................. 28
3.2.U. Costs and Expenses....................................................................................... 28
3.2.V. Providing Legal Services for Transferred Account.......................................... 28
3.2.W. City’s Method of Transferring Accounts ......................................................... 29
3.2.X. Cancelling and Recalling Accounts................................................................. 29
3.2.Y. Adjustments and Corrections to Account Data ............................................... 29
Chapter II – RFQ Item 4.3
Experience/Qualifications of the Respondent
4.3.A. Years Performing Collection Legal Services..................................................... 1
4.3.B. Experience Performing Legal Services............................................................. 1
4.3.C. Understanding the City’s Scope of Services................................................... 10
4.3.D. What Sets Linebarger Goggan Apart from Other Firms ................................. 19
4.3.E. Past or Pending Lawsuits ............................................................................... 24
4.3.F. Past or Pending Complaints............................................................................ 26
Qualifications for the City of Overland Park, Kansas
Table of Contents – Page 1
Chapter III – RFQ Item 4.4
Technical Ability
4.4.A. Legal Services .................................................................................................. 1
4.4.B. Community Relations........................................................................................ 2
4.4.C. Collection Procedures ...................................................................................... 3
4.4.D. Settlement Procedures ................................................................................... 11
4.4.E. Accepting Electronic Transfer of Accounts ..................................................... 11
4.4.F. Payments to the City ....................................................................................... 11
Chapter IV – RFQ Item 4.5
Key Personnel and Subcontractors Performing Services
4.5.A. Project Organizational Chart............................................................................. 1
4.5.B. Key Staff Qualifications..................................................................................... 4
4.5.C. Resumes of Key Personnel .............................................................................. 7
4.5.D. Training Program .............................................................................................. 7
Exhibits
A. Litigation and Grievances Lists
B. Management Team Resumes
Separate Envelope (with original proposal only)
Original Proposal Bond
Table of Contents – Page 2
CHAPTER I
RFQ ITEM 4.2
Minimum Qualifications and
Requirements
Linebarger Goggan
Highlights
; More than 2,000
government clients
including States,
Cities, Counties,
Schools, Special
Districts, State
and County
Courts, and
Federal
Government
; 34 years of
experience in
collecting various
government
receivables
including taxes,
fees, fines, service
charges, tolls,
healthcare, etc.
; Nationwide
collection
capabilities from
45 offices in 12
states
; Over 1,200 firm
employees
throughout the
nation
; 109 attorneys with
collection and
litigation expertise
; Over 250 highlytrained collection
staff
; Over 140
professional IT
employees
G
overnment entities across the nation are struggling to maximize
their revenue resources and contain costs in the face of
economic issues and soaring expenses. Linebarger Goggan
Blair & Sampson, LLP (Linebarger Goggan) is proud to offer the City of
Overland Park, Kansas (City) our response and proposal for solutions in
collecting the City’s delinquent court fees and fines.
RESPONDING TO RFQ REQUIREMENTS
Within this chapter, we provide the City with proof of our abilities to
meet all necessary qualifications and requirements as stated in the City’s
RFQ Section 3.0. Each sub-heading in this chapter corresponds to the
items listed in the RFQ, Sections 3.1 and 3.2 (Minimum Qualifications
and Minimum Requirements).
Local Presence
Linebarger Goggan and its employees take pride in being part of the
local community. Our Kansas City office serves our regional Midwest
clients and will manage all aspects of the contract and collection efforts
on behalf of your City. Managing Partner Scott McGlasson has been a
Kansas-licensed and practicing attorney since 1991, and acts as the
managing partner of our Kansas City office. In addition, Mr. McGlasson
is a resident of Johnson County and remains in touch with the nuances
and issues facing local governments in the area. Because Linebarger
Goggan is a national law firm having a local office location managed
by a local resident, we believe that the City receives tremendous
benefits and advantages, both tangible and intangible. Mr. McGlasson
will be personally available to respond to all City inquiries.
Our Vision for Debt Collections
In order to design and provide a quality collection program that
effectively meets the individual needs of our clients and maximizes
their collections, our law firm personnel have a singular focus – total
client satisfaction. Our firm achieves this goal by tailoring our
comprehensive legal and collection services to the client’s criteria, by
retaining professional and courteous legal and collection personnel, by
developing and supporting the most advanced collection technology
systems available, and by maintaining good personal communications
with our clients and the communities they serve.
Chapter I - Page 1
Significant investments are made in acquiring or developing advanced
technologies and to sustain a high volume collection effort. The
economies of scale required to justify this investment generally do not
exist for a single governmental entity attempting to operate its own inhouse collection program. That is where public-private partnerships can
offer several benefits to government entities, like your City, and their
constituents.
By contracting with Linebarger Goggan, the City can exponentially
expand its collection resources at no out-of-pocket cost to the City
and without unnecessarily spending taxpayer dollars. By outsourcing to
a firm with a proven track record like Linebarger Goggan:
•
City employees can focus on other critical operations and core
services while law firm personnel dedicate their efforts to collecting
delinquencies and increasing available revenue.
•
We diligently pursue unpaid accounts, ultimately resurrecting the
receivable and generating a new revenue source for the City.
•
The City, as well as the defendants, receives services from a law firm
highly experienced in handling and maintaining excellent public
and constituent relations. We are sensitive to the nature of the debt
being collected, and handle all matters with a view toward treating
each defendant with dignity and respect. This professionalism
ultimately provides insulation and protection against complaints,
public relation issues and potential liability.
•
Our collection efforts, including effective skip-tracing and defendant
location capabilities, may benefit the City in numerous ways,
including not only payment on accounts, but also by bringing
“lost” defendants back into the court system for processing and
resolution of their outstanding accounts.
•
Our contingency fee covers all operating expenses, including
delinquent data processing, printing, postage, address research, skiptracing, long distance phone bills, public notices, etc.
•
Kansas law allows your Court to obtain collection services from our
law firm at no cost to the Court.
Linebarger Goggan has the resources and experience to meet and
exceed the City’s expectations. Our specific experience and
understanding of the nuances of collecting court fees and fines provide
us a vast advantage that will immediately increase revenues and benefit
the City. Collection of delinquent court fees and fines is a major
focus and a core function of our law firm practice. We are confident
that our firm is fully prepared and best qualified to assist the City in
carrying out its objectives.
Based upon our extensive experience and expertise in handling the
collection of delinquent court debt, we have no reservations about our
Chapter I - Page 2
ability to meet or exceed the City’s collection needs and provide services
that exceed the industry standard.
3.1.A. FIRM’S RELATIONSHIP WITH OVERLAND PARK
Neither Linebarger Goggan nor any of our employees are
currently affiliated with the City; we are not a creditor,
officer, or employee of Overland Park.
Equitable ownership of the law firm is held exclusively by
the capital partners of the law firm, all of whom are
licensed attorneys actively engaged in the practice of law.
Women and minorities own 45 percent of the firm.
The law firm is governed by a 20-member Management
Committee. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) assures
that the policies established by the Management
2010 Linebarger Goggan Management Team
Committee are effectuated throughout the law firm. All
members of the Management Committee are equity partners and own
shares in the law firm.
3.1.B. LICENSED IN THE STATE OF KANSAS
Partner Scott McGlasson will be the Kansas-licensed attorney managing
the City’s collection contract. A resident of Johnson County, Mr.
McGlasson is licensed to practice law in Kansas, Kentucky, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Texas.
A collection agency license is not required in the State of Kansas, as the
state does not regulate debt collection agencies. States requiring licenses
and registration are shown in the following section.
3.1.C. ABILITY TO COLLECT DEBT NATIONWIDE
Linebarger Goggan is licensed and/or authorized to collect in all 50
states, U.S. territories, and commonwealths. A number of states
and/or territories do not require a license based upon (1) an exemption
for attorneys; (2) contacts being telephonic and/or from an out-of-state
location; or (3) license not required by the particular state. We have the
ability to effect collections in Caribbean nations, Canada, and foreign
countries and will meet any interstate collection requirements.
Collection Licenses and Registrations
Any states or territories not listed below do not require a license from our
law firm, based upon one or more of the conditions identified in the table
on the following page.
Chapter I - Page 3
COLLECTION LICENSES AND REGISTRATIONS
State
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Hawaii
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Maine
Maryland
Minnesota
Missouri
Nebraska
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
Oklahoma
Oregon
South Carolina
Texas
Tennessee
Utah
Washington
West Virginia
Virgin Islands
License/Registration Number
1194
202002044001
988356
7412
1998207405
607182 (Consumer)
607183 (Commercial)
COLA-188
CFP-286
06-0116 CA
Number not assigned (ICCC)
W00452253 (SOS)
DCL8926
2418
20471705
PL0646595
186
State Agency
State Board of Collection Agencies
Secretary of State
Colorado Collection Agency Board
Department of Banking
Division of Revenue
Number not assigned
0600171718
00700
0620589
CA101467
Number not assigned
CA48553
Number not assigned
800014885
6829512
Number not assigned
601911040
817050
LLP-0006-2005
Secretary of State
Department of Treasury
Regulation & Licensing Department
Secretary of State
Department of Financial Institutions
Secretary of State
Division of Finance and Corporate Securities
Secretary of State
Secretary of State
Collection Service Board
Department of Financial Institutions
Department of Licensing
State Tax Department
Office of the Lieutenant Governor
Department of Financial Services
Department of Commerce & Consumer Affairs
Department of Finance
Secretary of State
Iowa Consumer Credit Code
Secretary of State
Consumer Credit Regulation
Commissioner of Financial Regulation
Department of Commerce
Secretary of State
Collection Agency Licensing Board
Expiration Date
6/30/10
No expiration
7/1/10
9/30/11
12/31/12
12/31/10
12/31/10
6/30/10
3/15/10
12/31/10
1/31/10
7/31/10
7/24/11
6/30/10
No expiration
12/31/10
No expiration
No expiration
6/30/10
No expiration
6/30/10
No expiration
8/31/10
3/20/10
No expiration
10/26/11
1/31/10
12/31/10
06/30/10
No expiration
3.1.D. KNOWLEDGE OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS
As a national law firm, we are uniquely qualified with a knowledge
and familiarity of the federal, state, and local laws and regulations
regarding collection work in all jurisdictions in which we operate. We
possess a broad understanding of relevant laws and issues involving the
collection of Court debt in Kansas, and across the country. Additionally,
we understand legal issues and procedures relating to the general
collection of debt in Kansas and beyond.
Managing Partner Scott McGlasson began collecting debt in the State
of Kansas in 1986 and has extensive personal and professional
knowledge in this area. All collection efforts on behalf of the City will
be handled in accordance with all state and federal laws and regulations
and any additional requirements as set forth by the City.
Chapter I - Page 4
Linebarger Goggan’s collection teams are well versed in all applicable
laws and regulations. All collection personnel receive in-depth training
and regular updates on collection laws necessary for them to perform all
job duties and functions in compliance with those required laws and
regulations.
Finally, as a law firm, we adhere to the stringent ethical requirements
promulgated by the Supreme Court of Kansas, and in the courts of
every state and jurisdiction in which we practice. While we remain
intensely focused on our collection efforts, our employees always handle
all collection efforts in a legal and ethical manner while treating all
defendants with courtesy and respect for their confidentiality. Through
this approach, our collection actions provide comfort and satisfaction to
all defendants while, at the same time, providing a protection and
insulation from complaints and potential liability to the City and the
law firm.
After 34 years of providing superior collection services to our clients,
Linebarger Goggan has never had a Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
judgment or a Federal Trade Commission decree entered against it. This
record is not accidental, but rather the result of a combination of
managerial commitment, selective recruiting, intense training and
zealous quality control.
3.1.E. ABILITY TO HANDLE A HIGH VOLUME OF
ACCOUNTS
Linebarger Goggan currently handles in excess of 24 million accounts
and receives new accounts daily. On average, the firm services
approximately 2,500,000 delinquent accounts of all types and accepts
roughly 200,000 new accounts for collection each month.
Our Information Technology Group has demonstrated a consistent ability
to incorporate new clients with high-volume account portfolios into our
existing systems and processes, while meeting and exceeding both
existing and new client requirements and expectations. Our firm is
poised and ready to handle any account volume assignment necessary
and requested by the City.
Description of Collection Processes
Further details on our call center staff and customized collection
processes such as skip-tracing, mailings, dialing campaigns, and
litigation are provided in Chapter III.
3.1.F. INITIAL PROGRAMMING AND TECHNICAL
SUPPORT
Linebarger Goggan has invested more than $60 million in the
development of the most sophisticated and technologically advanced
Chapter I - Page 5
systems to enhance our collection abilities. We have over 140
dedicated IT staff at the City’s disposal who will be available and
capable of providing all necessary technical support in the development
of data transfer functionality.
Implementation Plan
Linebarger Goggan anticipates being fully prepared to accept the City’s
account data and begin the collection process within approximately 30
days from receipt of good, verifiable data, provided there are no special
problems with the dataset or with transferring the data correctly. Every
process described in this proposal currently exists and operates to the
satisfaction of the federal government and other large law firm collection
clients.
Our implementation plan includes testing the secure data networks,
confirming the accuracy of data transmissions, developing any special
report templates and letters series, and any other protocols that the City
might require, such as testing the firm’s updating capabilities in real time
on the City’s system. Once the implementation is complete, the actual
collection process and work plan are initiated.
The implementation table shown below highlights the various steps of
the implementation process and chronology. Many of the listed tasks are
completed concurrently during the on-going implementation process. As
a general comment, the various implementation steps can be completed
as rapidly as your City is willing and able to move through the process.
The implementation timeline and process is critically dependent upon the
cooperative efforts, immediate responses, and open communication lines
between the City staff and Linebarger Goggan staff. Under appropriate
circumstances, this timeline may be shortened dramatically.
The proposed schedule of events in the implementation stage is as
follows:
IMPLEMENTATION CHRONOLOGY AND PROCESS
The City approves a contract with Linebarger Goggan to collect delinquent accounts.
Linebarger Goggan Project Management Team meets with the City Project Manager to discuss
implementation issues, proposed work plan, and report formats, while firm IT personnel discuss the electronic
communications protocols and requirements with the City’s (or its vendor’s) data processing staff.
Linebarger Goggan’s IT personnel begin interface development with the City. The draft letters series for
adjudicated and for unadjudicated cases will also be submitted for review by the City Project Manager.
Chapter I - Page 6
IMPLEMENTATION CHRONOLOGY AND PROCESS
Secure Internet access is granted (path/passwords established), and database system partitioning is created
to accept the City’s test data. Complete initial programming of interfaces to begin testing phase.
The City sends any specific requirements, regulations and procedures for fees and fines. Linebarger
Goggan compiles City-specific training materials and assigns collectors and support personnel.
The City makes any final recommendations and approves all letters and scripts. The Linebarger Goggan
Project Management Team meets with the City Project Manager to review progress and discuss status of
implementation. The firm management team will also review staffing levels assigned and determine the
best course to accomplish full staffing level for the City's first assignment of accounts.
Law firm collection system programmers develop any special report formats and test them to the satisfaction
of City personnel. The City approves a system test plan to ensure the reliability and security of the network
transmissions. The City’s personnel begin sending test data to ensure both data security and data file
integrity.
Linebarger Goggan’s IT personnel and City’s IT personnel complete final testing and validate interfaces as
acceptable to permit transfer of live data.
The firm collection system programmers finalize any special report formats, address any issues relating to the
startup, complete any outstanding issues, and finalize ongoing IT work plan in conjunction with City's data
processing staff (or after consulting with the City's IT vendor).
The City transmits first official data file for collection.
Linebarger Goggan processes first data file, and the City collection program begins.
Linebarger Goggan Project Management Team meets with the City Project Manager to assess the
implementation process, address any unresolved issues that surfaced, and develop an ongoing management
plan for collections.
Further details regarding our data transfer process are provided in
Chapter II.
3.1.G. SAFEGUARDING INDIVIDUALS AND DATA
During implementation of this contract, Linebarger Goggan will confirm
that all procedures and methods specified by the City for safeguarding
the rights of individuals subject to collection are being fulfilled.
As previously stated, Linebarger Goggan follows all local, state, and
federal laws applicable to the collection of delinquent receivables,
including the FDCPA. We understand the importance of providing a
positive experience by treating all defendants with respect and dignity.
Collection Strategies
The collection strategies and techniques used by Linebarger Goggan are
legal, ethical, and highly professional in manner. Experienced staff work
the collection floor on a daily basis in full compliance with all applicable
federal and state laws. All defendants are treated with courtesy and
respect, and all information is kept strictly confidential.
Chapter I - Page 7
Linebarger Goggan believes that dignity and compassion for each
individual cannot be abandoned in the pursuit of collections. We make a
point of:
•
•
•
•
•
listening to the defendants
working with the defendants
providing relevant information and education to defendants
exploring options and alternative solutions
encouraging them in the resolution of their delinquent accounts
These intangibles are essential in protecting the rights of the defendants,
minimizing complaints, and maximizing revenues for our clients. As a
law firm, we are generally held to a higher ethical standard by the courts
as well as the various bar associations where our attorneys are licensed to
practice law. Linebarger Goggan affirms that this high ethical standard
will be the bedrock of our partnership with the City.
In addition to protecting defendants during our personal communications
with them, we also have numerous data and physical security features in
place to protect all clients and their defendants, as shown on the
following pages.
Data Security Features
NIACAP Accreditation
In 2005, Linebarger Goggan received its National Information Assurance
Certification and Accreditation Process (NIACAP) Final Certification.
NIACAP is based on the NIST 800 series special publications, which
provide guidance on developing and implementing a comprehensive
computer security program and were developed in response to the 2002
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA).
The NIACAP certification process involved an extensive review the
firm’s information systems security, including disaster recovery as
outlined in the firm’s business continuity program, intrusion detection,
physical plant security, virus protection and a host of related issues. The
policies and standards developed to support the firm’s NIACAP
certification are designed to protect Linebarger Goggan information
resources from unauthorized access, inadvertent disclosure of sensitive
information to unauthorized individuals, sabotage, natural disaster, etc.
In order to obtain an objective third-party validation of Linebarger
Goggan's NIACAP internal certification, the firm contracted with
Dynetics, Inc. Dynetics, Inc. is a civilian corporation that has extensive
experience auditing, investigating and certifying federal systems.
The firm's certification is renewed annually. The most recent
certification renewal was completed in September 2009.
Chapter I - Page 8
Network Security
• Data Encryption – 128 Bit End Node to End Node
We currently maintain several Virtual Private Network (VPN)
connections for law firm operations. These VPN connections provide
the required speed and security.
• Intrusion Detection at each end Node
We currently run intrusion detection on our Firewall and can run it on
any other router involved in a connection. In addition, we run SNORT
IDS at our internet access point, collecting information on inbound and
outbound traffic.
• Firewall protection at firm’s connection to the Internet
• End Nodes access is limited and secure
• End Nodes with dedicated IP addresses
• End Nodes with transaction or data transmission Audit Logs
The end node routers are set up to send audit logs to our centralized log
server to maintain a record of all transmissions.
• Backup or alternate transmission plans adhere to the same security
requirements
Electronic data associated with the City project will be maintained at the
Linebarger Goggan Information Technology Group facility, the primary
technology location for the firm, which is located in San Antonio, Texas.
This facility has extensive safeguards to protect and secure the hardware
and information maintained at this location. Access to City data will be
accomplished by a leased 10Mbs dedicated connection.
Data Communications Security
Linebarger Goggan has gone to great lengths and expense to ensure the
integrity and security of our clients’ data, which is evident in every area
of how client data is handled, transmitted, and used in the collections
process. Linebarger Goggan employs standard industry security
protocols, such as IPSec-3DES-MD5, that maintain the integrity and
confidentiality of our clients' data. Most VPN clients are configured to
use a full 168 bits of encryption.
Physical Security
The law firm’s ITG operation occupies rooms on the first floor and the
entire second floor of the Brookhollow building in San Antonio. Access
to the common areas of the building is controlled by a system operated
by Brookhollow management personnel. Access to Linebarger Goggan
facilities within the building is controlled by a system that is owned and
operated by Linebarger Goggan. Access requires a photo identification
access badge issued by the firm. These badges are configured to control
which areas within the facility an employee can access and when.
Restricted Access areas within the ITG facility require the employee to
use both their access badge and a Personal Identification Number.
Chapter I - Page 9
Access badges and their assigned access levels are reviewed on a semiannual basis.
Linebarger Goggan also has video surveillance of all ITG entrances and
exits 24 hours per day. This video information is maintained for 90 days.
Access to the Linebarger Goggan computer network requires a unique
User ID and unique password. When a new user account is created, a
temporary password will be created and provided to the new employee;
however, the network will force the employee to change this password
after the first successful network logon. Linebarger Goggan User IDs are
created using the employee’s first and last name.
In addition, all passwords must meet “Strong Password” criteria: at least
eight characters in length, a mixture of upper- and lower-case letters, at
least one number, and at least one special character. All Linebarger
Goggan passwords must be changed every 90 days, and users are
prevented from reusing passwords.
We consistently meet and exceed safeguarding requirements for various
local, state, and federal government clients. We have no reservations in
our ability to provide adequate security procedures for your City.
3.1.H. COMPLIANCE WITH KANSAS STATUTE
Linebarger Goggan will comply with all requirements and procedures set
forth in K.S.A. § 12-4119, as amended, as well as all other applicable
state, federal, or local laws relating to the collection of debt.
3.1.I. COURT COLLECTION EXPERIENCE FOR OVER
THREE YEARS
With more than three decades of experience and over 2,000 local,
state, and federal clients, Linebarger Goggan is a national leader in
collection services for governmental entities.
Linebarger Goggan has been widely recognized for the past 34 years for
its success in collecting delinquent ad valorem taxes. Over the years, our
law firm has also gained a national reputation for success in collecting
delinquent court fees and fines. We currently represent numerous
clients in the collection of delinquent court fees and fines, which
encompasses more than 500 individual courts throughout the nation.
Some of our regional municipal court clients include the United
Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City (KS), Kansas City (MO),
Saint Louis, and Tulsa.
Each year Linebarger Goggan collects approximately $1 billion in
delinquent government receivables for its clients. The firm’s attorneys
Chapter I - Page 10
and highly-trained collectors currently manage more than $10 billion in
delinquent government receivables.
3.1.J. FELONY CHARGES
No current owner or operator of Linebarger Goggan has been convicted
of a felony. The firm is a private company; there are no stockholders in
the firm.
3.2.A. PROJECT PERSONNEL
We offer the City the most qualified project team for its collection needs.
Scott McGlasson, Managing Partner of the firm’s Kansas City
regional office, will be responsible for management and oversight of all
aspects of the City’s contract including all implementation issues;
coordination of law firm staff and resources; and the daily collection
strategies and operations for the City. He has been involved in the
collection industry since 1986. A resident of Johnson County, Mr.
McGlasson is a very familiar with the needs of the local governments
and their constituents. Mr. McGlasson and other team members will be
available to communicate in any manner desired and requested by the
City, including personally meeting with City staff in their offices as
desired.
Mike Vallandingham, Partner, will provide advice and counsel on
collection strategies and management issues and help assure that the firm
delivers on the promises made. He will be responsible for overall
internal project management and administration.
Michael Brown, Director of Operations, will provide management and
analytical supervision to accomplish performance goals.
John Wilson, San Antonio Call Center Director of Operations, will
be responsible for managing the necessary call center resources and
collection staff.
Richard H. Pachecano, Director of Fees and Fines, IT Group, will
provide the management oversight and technical guidance for the
transfer of data necessary to ensure a smooth implementation period.
Don Crawford, Data Processing Manager, will provide technical
support and work closely with the City team.
Team Biographies and Resumes
Biographies and further information about each of the management team
members are provided in Chapter IV. Resumes are provided in Exhibit
B.
Chapter I - Page 11
3.2.B. NUMBER OF COURT FEES AND FINES CLIENTS
Linebarger Goggan currently represents various court clients in the
collection of delinquent court fees and fines, which encompasses more
than 500 individual courts throughout the nation. By way of
example, our court clients include various cities and counties such as:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wyandotte County/Kansas City (KS)
Kansas City (MO)
Saint Louis (MO)
Tulsa (OK)
Bartlesville (OK)
Little Rock (AR)
Jonesboro (AR)
Baltimore (MD)
Dallas (TX)
Denver (CO)
Duval County (FL)
Houston (TX)
Miami-Dade County (FL)
Orange County (CA)
Philadelphia (PA)
Richmond (VA)
Round Rock (TX)
Salt Lake City (UT)
Scottsdale (AZ)
Waxahachie (TX)
Collection of court debt involves specialized understanding of the
particular characteristics of that debt type, as well as the legal processes
and procedures required for collecting it. Our expertise has been
developed over years of handling court collections for numerous court
clients.
We possess a broad understanding of relevant laws and issues involving
the collection of court debt in Kansas, and across the country.
Additionally, we understand legal issues and procedures relating to the
general collection of debt in Kansas and beyond.
On the following pages, we provide the City with examples of our
successes with several of these clients. *
Results obtained depend on the nature of each portfolio of accounts and the facts of each case. Every portfolio is somewhat different.
Similar results may not be obtained in your case. Past performance is no guarantee of future results.
*
Chapter I - Page 12
Kansas City (MO)
We collect municipal court debt, city taxes and various special
assessments for the City of Kansas City, Missouri. As of November
2009, we have collected more than $5.4 million in these municipal debts
for the City.
The City began referring Municipal Court debt to our firm in April
2006. Referrals included a significant backlog of accounts, some of
which were up to twenty years’ delinquent. Our collection efforts have
recovered more than $3.4 million to date and brought numerous
“lost” defendants back into the City’s court system to resolve their
delinquent accounts.
We have collected over $1.1 million in City tax accounts and assist the
City in identifying necessary information on disputed tax accounts and
accounts of non-filing taxpayers. This information facilitates the City’s
process for resolving disputes and reconciling its tax rolls. In October
2007, the City requested that we expand our collection services to
include the collection of various assessment debts. Since then we have
generated an additional $471,000 in additional revenue from this debt
portfolio.
KANSAS CITY COLLECTIONS BY DEBT TYPE
Chapter I - Page 13
Duval County Clerk of the Court (FL)
We currently collect civil traffic citations (first placements) for the Duval
County Clerk of the Court (Jacksonville), and we have seen a
tremendous response to our efforts. As of December 2009, Linebarger
Goggan had collected more than $24.2 million on delinquent citations
for the Clerk of the Court.
Over the lifetime of the firm’s contract with Duval County, the recovery
rate as of December 2009 was 46.1 percent for all dollars placed. The
liquidation rate for all accounts resolved (cash and alternate
methods) is 62.7 percent.
CUMULATIVE COLLECTIONS – CIVIL TRAFFIC CITATIONS
Chapter I - Page 14
Miami-Dade County Clerk of the Courts (FL)
As of November 2009, Linebarger Goggan has recovered more than
$39.1 million in additional revenue from delinquent parking and traffic
citations for the Miami-Dade Clerk of the Courts.
The initial portfolio of first placements for parking citations was turned
over to us in March 2001 and included debts that were eight or more
years delinquent. As of November 2009, the firm has collected more than
$18.3 million in delinquent parking citations for the Miami-Dade County
Clerk of the Courts. In 2004, the firm also began collecting traffic
citations and has successfully recovered an additional $20.8 million
through June 2009. The total net value of placements for traffic and
parking combined from March 2001 through November 2009 is $144.5
million.
The chart below illustrates the combined recovery rate for parking and
traffic citations. As of November 2009, the liquidation rate was 33.7
percent of total net dollars placed including resolved accounts. The
liquidation rate for all accounts placed is 65.3 percent. This includes
any accounts cancelled or recalled by the client.
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY – DELINQUENT PARKING & TRAFFIC COLLECTIONS
Chapter I - Page 15
City of Missouri City (TX)
Collections of court fees and fines for the City Municipal Court began
in February 2003. Since that time, our firm has collected more than $1.1
million in additional revenue for the City. As seen in the chart below, we
have obtained a collection rate of 26.1 percent for dollars collected over
life of contract with a 57 percent liquidation rate for accounts resolved
(cash plus alternate methods).
CITY OF MISSOURI CITY, TEXAS – COLLECTIONS
Chapter I - Page 16
City of Round Rock (TX)
Linebarger Goggan has been collecting court fees and fines for Round
Rock Municipal Court since 2004. Since then, the firm has collected
more than $1.8 million in additional revenue for the City. In addition, the
overall collection rate is 31.8 percent.
ROUND ROCK COLLECTION RECOVERY RATES
Chapter I - Page 17
City of Scottsdale (AZ)
Our partnership with the City of Scottsdale, Arizona, began in July 2003
and complements the City’s effort to maximize its revenue from city
court fees and fines. We collect delinquent civil and criminal fines and
fees after the city court has attempted collection without a positive result.
As seen in the chart below, Linebarger Goggan collected more than $4.7
million dollars in delinquent civil citations for the City and more than
$6.6 million in combined collections for delinquent civil and criminal
citations between July 2007 and July 2009. We have obtained a
collection rate of 11.4 percent for criminal citations collections and 25.9
percent for civil citations collections.
SCOTTSDALE – COLLECTIONS FOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CITATIONS
Chapter I - Page 18
City and County of Denver (CO)
Linebarger Goggan has collected various delinquent debts for the City
and County of Denver since 2003. Initially, the firm collected on most
types of delinquent debt owed to the City and County of Denver.
Delinquent receivables, such as bad checks for the Department of Motor
Vehicles, Fire Department inspection bills, Forestry Department claims
for tree removal, criminal restitution claims, electronic monitoring
accounts, court fees and fines connected with City and County courts,
and delinquent charges for the Denver Coliseum. In 2006, the City and
County began sending parking citations to the law firm for collection.
The charts below illustrate the annual cumulative collections and
resolved accounts for the new parking debt portfolio. As of November
30, 2009, the firm had collected more than $3.1 million for the City
and County of Denver. The overall net collection rate, as of November
2009, for all dollars resolved was 10.6 percent (based on all parking
tickets placed for collection since the onset of the contract). Resolved
accounts include paid in full, bankruptcy, deceased, incarcerated or
withdrawn and dismissed based upon defect.
CITY & COUNTY OF DENVER – RECOVERY RESULTS FOR PARKING CITATIONS
Chapter I - Page 19
3.2.C. THREE COMPARABLE CONTRACTS AND CLIENT
REFERENCES
We proudly offer the City the following contact information for three of
our current clients. We welcome the City to contact each of these clients
and speak to them directly regarding the firm’s abilities.
Linebarger Goggan is the primary contractor, and Partner Scott
McGlasson manages all aspects of each of the contracts for the
references listed below.
Kansas City, Missouri
Description of Work: Collection of delinquent court fees and fines,
taxes, and various Treasury debts (including special assessment debts)
Total Dollar Amount of Contract: $53,114,229
Contract Duration: June 2005 – Ongoing
Client Contact Information: Mr. Anthony Miller, Court Administrator
Municipal Court
1101 Locust
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: 816/513-3878
Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City,
Kansas
Description of Work: Collection of various delinquent courts fees and
fines
Contract Duration: June 2009 – Ongoing
Client Contact Information: Peggy Campbell, Court Administrator
701 N 7th Street, Room 232
Kansas City, KS 66101
Phone: 913/573-5212
Saint Louis, Missouri
Description of Work: Collection of various delinquent court fees and
fines
Contract Duration: May 2008 – Ongoing
Client Contact Information: Ms. Catherine Ruggeri-Rea
Court Administrator
St. Louis Municipal Court
1520 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103
Phone: 314/613-7497
Chapter I - Page 20
3.2.D. SURETY BOND FILING
A surety bond in the amount of $50,000 was filed with the State of
Kansas Secretary of State. Proof of the bond filing is provided, as
required, in Chapter II.
3.2.E. SECRETARY OF STATE REGISTRATION
Linebarger Goggan is registered with the Kansas Secretary of State.
Proof of registration and the firm’s good standing is provided in Chapter
II.
3.2.F. ACCEPTING REPORTS IN ELECTRONIC FORMAT
Linebarger Goggan is able to accept reports in any electronic format and
on any schedule required by the City. We can accommodate transfer
files in most text (fixed or delimited) or XML file structures, in addition
to client-defined fixed length formats. A very common format, often
preferred by our many clients, is a Comma Delimited (CSV) file format.
3.2.G. ENSURING CONFIDENTIALITY
All information and personal data connected with the collection of the
City’s accounts will be considered confidential. Because the protection
of confidential business information and trade secrets is vital to the
interests and success of the law firm, each employee is responsible for
safeguarding confidential information obtained during employment. The
law firm requires that all employees sign a confidentiality statement at
the time of hire and periodically throughout their terms of employment to
acknowledge their awareness of, and reaffirm their commitment to, the
firm's policy protecting law firm and client information.
Any complaints regarding breaches of confidentiality will be
investigated, reported, and resolved within 24 hours. Any legitimate
confidentiality complaint may be grounds for immediate termination.
The law firm also has strict policies regarding the shredding and
destruction of confidential data, file sharing, and email procedures that
every employee must adhere to when handling client or law firm
information.
Our additional security features are provided earlier in this chapter under
Item 3.1.G., Safeguarding Individuals and Data.
3.2.H. PAYMENT CARD INDUSTRY COMPLIANCE
All information and personal data connected with the collection of the
City accounts will be considered confidential. Each debtor’s personal
Chapter I - Page 21
confidentiality will be protected through our Payment Card Industry
(PCI) compliance.
We have provided a letter of compliance from Digital Defense, Inc.
below.
Chapter I - Page 22
3.2.I. DISPUTES AND COMPLAINTS PROCESS
We measure our customer satisfaction by our ability to retain clients over
the long term. The majority of our original clients have been represented
by our law firm for more than a decade. To achieve the level of
customer service we demand of ourselves, we place strong emphasis on
our employees, from the initial screening, recruitment and training, to job
retention and advancement opportunities. Because we invest
considerable resources in our personnel, we are able to retain qualified
personnel to manage our collection programs and to work the delinquent
accounts for our clients. Their job satisfaction results in better
collections for our clients, better contract performance overall and
minimal complaints.
In those instances in which disputes or complaints are received,
Linebarger Goggan treats this situation with the highest of priorities.
The following provides an overview of our policies and procedures in
responding to questions, disputes or complaints.
Zero Tolerance/Complaint Policy
Linebarger Goggan continually strives to minimize complaints and has a
“zero tolerance policy” towards any valid complaint. Linebarger Goggan
management vigorously and carefully investigates all complaints made
against any member of its collection staff. It is of the utmost importance
to the law firm that all citizens contacted are treated professionally and
respectfully. For this reason, the law firm strives to hold open all lines of
communication between the defendants, the collectors, and the client.
Handling Defendant Disputes
Linebarger Goggan will adhere strictly to all City guidelines when
handling disputed accounts. If, during the course of reviewing any
disputed case file, the law firm suspects fraudulent activity, the City will
be notified immediately.
In cases where the defendant disputes the actual debt or the amount
outstanding, we generally request any necessary backup documentation
from the City to verify the legitimacy of the account and amount owed.
All correspondence confirming the debt owed is forwarded to the
defendant. After an appropriate interval, we will resume collection
efforts. If the defendant continues to make no effort to pay the amount
owed, we recommend other legal enforcement collection options to the
City, based upon the information available on the defendant and the
eligibility of the debt for further legal action.
If the disputed amount is determined to be inaccurate or invalid based
upon our research and the City’s documentation, we will communicate
this information to the appropriate designated City point of contact to
resolve the dispute and close the account. Accounts in this category may
Chapter I - Page 23
include accounts that have been paid previously, but not fully removed
from the system, errors in initial billing, etc.
DISPUTED ACCOUNTS
Handling Defendant Complaints
At Linebarger Goggan, experienced collection professionals supervise
the collection floor and respond immediately to special situations that
may develop in the course of a collection phone call. With over 90
percent of all defendant communications handled by these front-line
personnel, possible complaints are minimized. The Collection Floor
Manager reviews any defendant complaints and, when determined to be
valid, flags the account and notifies the client within 24 hours.
Complaints by Telephone
All complaint calls are transferred to the Collection Manager and
discussed with the defendant. The Collection Manager determines the
legitimacy of the complaint and if valid, flags the account as a complaint.
Within 24 hours a memo is sent to the client, informing them of the
complaint. A copy of the collection notes are attached to the memo and
forwarded to the client.
Chapter I - Page 24
Complaints by Correspondence
The Collection Manager reviews all written complaints. The Collection
Manager determines the legitimacy of the complaint and, if valid, flags
the account as a complaint. Within 24 hours a memorandum is sent to
the client, informing the client of the complaint, along with the collection
notes and the correspondence from the defendant.
If a defendant registers a complaint against a collector, the collector is
required to prepare a memorandum explaining his/her conversation (oral
or written) with the defendants. The memorandum is included in
correspondence to the client.
COMPLAINTS PROCESS
Confidentiality
All information and personal data connected with the collection of City
accounts are considered confidential. Any complaints regarding
breaches of confidentiality will be investigated, reported to the client,
and resolved within 24 hours.
Chapter I - Page 25
Regulatory Agency, Elected Officials, and Media Inquiries
Because government entities are the law firm's primary clients,
Linebarger Goggan deals with elected officials on a daily basis and fully
appreciates the need for political sensitivity when contacting defendants.
The law firm believes that it must do everything to eliminate complaints
whenever possible, as there are two names that need to be protected – the
name of our client and that of Linebarger Goggan.
Any communications from state or federal agencies, elected officials or
representatives from the media will be immediately communicated to the
City. The firm Project Manager for this project will work with the City
to prepare a joint response.
Linebarger Goggan will be readily accessible to City staff should an
issue arise that would require immediate attention at the very highest
level. We are committed to delivering the premier standards of customer
service for our clients founded upon quality and partnership. By
immediately addressing any issues or concerns that our clients have, we
strongly believe that no issue should ever escalate to complaint status
from our clients.
3.2.J. REMITTANCE OF PAYMENTS
Linebarger Goggan agrees to remit 100 percent of payments received by
City defendants, including fines, fees, and costs, to the City on a monthly
basis or as otherwise required or agreed by the City.
3.2.K. REPORTING SCHEDULE
We will establish a reporting schedule in the format and frequency
desired and approved by the City. Any changes to the format or schedule
can be changed at any time during the project based on the City’s needs.
3.2.L. MONTHLY STATUS REPORTS
Linebarger Goggan will prepare and provide a monthly Status Report in
the format desired and approved by the City. The reports may be
customized to include any information the City requires or requests.
K.S.A. § 12-4119 does not appear to set forth specific reporting
requirements. However, any reports requested by the City to comply
with requirements of that statutory provision will be available.
3.2.M. ADDITIONAL REPORTS
The reports we provide the City will include information such as receipt
of placements, payment transmittals, account closures, and anything the
City deems necessary. Our reports will include the following:
Chapter I - Page 26
Monthly Status Report
•
•
total of all court fees, fines, and costs for each account
total amount collected
Management Reports
•
•
relevant statistical trends
financial details
Acknowledgment Report
•
•
•
number of accounts
data received
total amount referred by the City
Cancellation Report
•
•
•
•
number and dollar amount of receivables canceled
uncollectible or returned receivables
reasons why they were uncollectible or returned
bankruptcy or other legal actions taken on accounts
Performance Report
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
summary of aged receivables by category of debt
number and dollar amount of receivables referred
total number of accounts collected
collection rate
date of referral/return, age to resolution
number of referrals currently working
recovery rate of referred/returned receivables
type of collection made according to type of debt
repayment agreements effective at that time
number and percentage of accounts returned to the City
Invoice Report
•
our total fee for that month
3.2.N. SPECIAL REPORTS
We can generate other ad hoc or specialty reports that the City may
require and provide them in whatever format desired.
3.2.O. ACCOUNT SETTLEMENT FOR FULL AMOUNT
No account will be settled until the full payment has been processed,
unless otherwise directed in writing by the City.
Chapter I - Page 27
3.2.P. UNCOLLECTED OR RECALLED ACCOUNTS
Linebarger Goggan’s fees are contingency-based; we only get paid when
the delinquent receivable is collected. Furthermore, pursuant to Kansas
law, collection services are provided at no cost to the City. If an account
is deemed uncollectible or recalled, there will no be cost to the City for
the collection efforts put forth on these accounts.
3.2.Q. COMMENCING SERVICES WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Linebarger Goggan understands and will eagerly comply with the
expectation to begin commencing services within 30 days after contract
award and execution.
3.2.R. PLANNED LEGAL ACTION ON AN ACCOUNT
Our firm agrees to inform, and obtain approval from the City before
taking any legal actions for any collection account. We will only move
forward once guidelines are discussed and agreed upon between the firm
and the City.
3.2.S. RETURNING RECALLED ACCOUNTS
All collection efforts will cease immediately once the City informs us
that an account has been recalled. The account will be returned to the
City. It is the City’s prerogative to reassess the account for collections at
a later date; if this occurs, the firm is more than willing to begin
collection efforts once again.
3.2.T. RETURNING ACCOUNTS AT TERMINATION
It is understood that all accounts assigned to the firm will be returned to
the City within 30 days after termination of the contract related to this
City RFQ.
3.2.U. COSTS AND EXPENSES
Linebarger Goggan’s collection fee will encompass all costs, including
administrative tasks, equipment, or supplies. No additional cost will be
incurred by the City.
3.2.V. PROVIDING LEGAL SERVICES FOR
TRANSFERRED ACCOUNTS
As a law firm, Linebarger Goggan is qualified to provide any legal
services required by the City for any accounts the City may transfer to
the firm. As previously stated, we will only move forward on any legal
action once guidelines are discussed and agreed upon between the firm
and the City.
Chapter I - Page 28
3.2.W. CITY’S METHOD OF TRANSFERRING ACCOUNTS
Linebarger Goggan understands that the City will determine the method
of transferring accounts to the firm, as well as the scheduling of
automatic transfers. It is anticipated that the accounts will be transferred
in an electronic format pursuant to a routine schedule through an
automated computer function. During the implementation process of this
contract, Managing Partner Scott McGlasson and appropriate IT staff
will meet with the City to determine preferences and implement the most
efficient account transfer methods.
3.2.X. CANCELLING AND RECALLING ACCOUNTS
If an account is recalled or cancelled by the City, there will no be cost to
the City for the collection efforts put forth on these accounts by
Linebarger Goggan.
3.2.Y. ADJUSTMENTS AND CORRECTIONS TO
ACCOUNT DATA
Linebarger Goggan understands that the City can reevaluate an account
that has already been assigned to the firm and report the adjusted amount
due to allow for continued collection efforts on that adjusted account.
Chapter I - Page 29
CHAPTER II
RFQ ITEM 4.3
Experience/Qualifications of the
Respondent
W
ith over 2,000 local, state, and federal clients, Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP (Linebarger Goggan) is a
national leader in the collection of government receivables.
Our performance has resulted in significant increases in collections and
revenues for the clients who have chosen to partner with us to collect
their delinquent receivables. Collection of court fees and fines –
similar in nature to your delinquent Municipal Court portfolio – is
one of our main focuses. We hope to have the opportunity to bring
similar exceptional results and successes to the City of Overland Park,
Kansas (City).
4.3.A. YEARS PERFORMING COLLECTION LEGAL
SERVICES
Linebarger Goggan was established in 1976. Since that time, we have
focused singularly on providing collection of delinquent receivables
owed to governmental units. Our success in providing unparalleled
service and unmatched performance for our clients has elevated the firm
from its genesis in Texas to the national stage.
4.3.B EXPERIENCE PERFORMING LEGAL SERVICES
As stated above, our firm has spent the last three decades concentrating
on the legal services and collections of delinquent government
receivables. In Chapter I, we provide the City several examples of our
collection success stories with other court fees and fines clients
throughout the country, including Denver (CO), Kansas City (MO), and
Miami-Dade County (FL).
Registration with the State of Kansas
Linebarger Goggan is registered with the Kansas Secretary of State. A
copy of our registration is provided on the following page.
In addition, we have provided a screen shot from the
www.accesskansas.gov website showing our current status and good
standing with the Kansas Secretary of State.
Chapter II - Page 1
Chapter II - Page 2
Chapter II - Page 3
Chapter II - Page 4
Surety Bond
The law firm has obtained the required $50,000 surety bond. A copy of
the bond is provided on the following pages.
Chapter II - Page 5
Chapter II - Page 6
Chapter II - Page 7
Chapter II - Page 8
Chapter II - Page 9
4.3.C. UNDERSTANDING THE CITY’S SCOPE OF
SERVICES
Linebarger Goggan is prepared to provide the City with all of its
collection, technical, and legal services needs, including the tasks
required in the City’s RFQ, Section 2.0, Scope of Services:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Enabling secure data transfers that maintain data integrity
Support collection operations with web-based collection
software
Specialized collection notices
Media campaigns
Call center personnel
Collection technology
Legal resources to assure compliance to applicable laws
Data Transfer Process
Upon being awarded a contract, our Information Technology Group
(ITG) will immediately create a secured database for the City. Each
account placement is allocated a unique internal tracking number. This
number is used to create client reports and to track the account placement
data throughout the life of the account.
We will establish, test, and confirm to the satisfaction of the City’s
programmers and technical support staff all of our network connections
to verify appropriate levels of security and data integrity between the
City’s system and ours. Information that is not sensitive can be
transferred by email or standard SFTP. All information considered
sensitive is transferred by one of several DOD-approved encryption
logarithms.
Most placement data is received via Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
using encryption technology over the Internet and our frame relay
communication system. We can accommodate a wide variety of SFTP
packages. For security reasons, we do not allow direct data transfer to or
from our main computer system. This helps to maintain security for our
system and our clients’ data.
Linebarger Goggan uses several secure protocols for client data transfers:
Chapter II - Page 10
•
SFTP – Linebarger Goggan supports SFTP (port 22) as a
protocol for secure file transfers by using the OpenSSH client
and server model.
•
Web SSL – Linebarger Goggan supports HTTPS file transfers
through a secure Web page. All data transfers and logons occur
within a 128 bit encrypted SSL session.
•
IP Sec Tunnel – Linebarger Goggan also supports the use of a
client-to-server or LAN-to-LAN IPSec encrypted tunnel through
which a standard FTP session (port 21) can be established and
encrypted up to 168 bits.
•
PGP – Linebarger Goggan also supports the use of PGP for
encrypting files that are emailed. Messages are encrypted with a
user’s key, which works in conjunction with scrambling
algorithms to produce data that can be decrypted only by its
intended recipient.
Our file transfer servers receive files from our clients and send automatic
email notifications to our Client Managers and our Load Techs. The
Client Managers track their specific clients’ data, while the Load Techs
check the data for errors and proceed with loading the data into our
CUBS Collection System once it is verified.
Web-Based Access to Collection Data
Linebarger Goggan can provide the City with web-based access to the
City’s data on our collection system via an encrypted session over the
Internet, as required. This is a secure method of access for monitoring
our system and the client’s data.
Our customized CUBS collection system is described in length further in
this chapter.
Customized Collection Notices
Linebarger Goggan will develop customized collection notices that
comply with all required laws and regulations and meet the City’s
approval. All letters will appear on law firm letterhead and will be
mailed to the last known mailing address of the defendant. Each notice
will clearly identify the City as our client and will contain the necessary
details of the debt and total amount due, including fees, fines, and
collection fee, if applicable. It will also warn that failure to pay the
outstanding amount will result in the recommendation to use all possible
enforcement mechanisms to collection the amount due. A toll-free
number will be provided for the defendant to conveniently contact the
law firm to resolve the matter.
For payment, each notice will include a detachable coupon for the
defendant to return payment by check, money order, credit card, or other
payment options allowed and approved by the City.
If the first notice does not result in a reply or resolution, subsequent
notices will be mailed notifying the defendant of the continuing unpaid
obligation and potential remedies that may be pursued in the event of
continued failure to pay. In some instances, it may be beneficial to
pursue collection efforts through specialized mailings. In these
instances, collection notices may be customized according to the special
circumstance in an effort to obtain the defendant’s attention and
encourage action. In addition, notices can be sent in both English and
Spanish translations.
The format and wording of all collection notices will be reviewed and
approved by the City prior to implementation.
Media Campaigns
Linebarger Goggan has been working with hundreds of cities for years
on cutting-edge techniques to enhance collections. One of these
techniques is targeted media campaigns intended to inform citizens and
offenders of their outstanding obligations, and providing information and
options with regard to how the defendants may fulfill their obligations to
the City.
If awarded the contract, the firm will work closely with the City to
determine how a media strategy may work with the collection program to
further encourage payment and compliance from defendants.
Examples of media campaigns that Linebarger Goggan has been
involved in with other clients include such things as the development and
distribution of public service announcements, press releases, and
coordination of press conferences.
Sample Press Releases and Media Coverage
The following pages include a sample press release used to encourage
media coverage of a delinquent parking fees and fines campaign in the
City of Houston, Texas. The resulting article spotlights Houston’s
efforts to pursue litigation against offenders. Linebarger Goggan has the
staff and expertise to carry out a similar program for the City’s
delinquent court fees and fines.
Call Center Personnel
Collection calls for the City will be handled by Linebarger Goggan’s San
Antonio Call Center, which specializes in handling collection of
delinquent court fees and fines. John Wilson, Call Center Collections
Operations Manager, will oversee the day-to-day activities at the San
Antonio Call Center. Reporting to Mr. Wilson are 80 professional
collection staff, including:
• 1 collection floor manager, who will supervise all activities on the
collection floor
• 8 collections supervisors, who will monitor collector activities and
assist them with difficult or complex accounts
• 2 administrative support personnel, who will support collection center
activities
• 1 commercial collections supervisor, who will oversee all commercial
account collection activities
• 68 collectors, who will contact defendants and work with them daily to
collect delinquent court fees and fines owed to the City
Call Center Overflow Capabilities
Most calls are answered directly by a collector, and callers rarely
experience unacceptable delays as the system is designed to
automatically forward the call to the next available agent. The call
center floor supervisor monitors the call volume to ensure that all calls
are answered within an acceptable time frame.
In the unlikely event that the San Antonio Call Center receives more
calls than it can handle within acceptable timeframes, the overflow calls
may be temporarily forwarded to one of the firm’s seven other call
centers until the call volume subsides to normal levels . At present, the
law firm employs more than 250 professional collectors nationwide, all
of whom are capable of handling collection calls for the City.
Call Center Technology
Linebarger Goggan’s dedicated to optimizing collection efficiency and
effectiveness while upholding the highest possible standards. We
pioneered the application of high technology to delinquent collections
when we entered the field three decades ago. Our representation of the
largest governmental entities in states such as California, Florida,
Illinois, Kansas, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia, as well as the federal
government, has led us to invest more than $60 million to develop the
very latest, most sophisticated data processing and communications
technology available. We are proud to offer the City our advanced
technological systems for its delinquent fees and fines program.
Linebarger Goggan
Technical Highlights
;The law firm is
NIACAP-certified,
one of the most
stringent standards
for private sector
systems security
;Over 140
professional IT
employees
maintain the law
firm's network
infrastructure and
data processing
operations
;Operate fully
redundant network
and data
processing systems
to maintain
business continuity
Since 1976 our in-house ITG has developed specialized applications and
customized collection systems to manage a wide variety of government
receivables. Linebarger Goggan’s fees and fines collection program is
managed using the Columbia Ultimate Business Systems, Inc. (CUBS)
software, which our
programming staff has
adapted and customized for
specialized law firm
applications. We have
developed easy-to-use custom
features that are stable,
effective, and do not interfere
with basic CUBS program
code. This system combines
the best of a traditional
collections software platform
with state-of-the-art enhancements that allow Linebarger Goggan to meet
our clients’ growing and specific needs for sophisticated software
applications.
To accomplish this task, we have focused on the automation,
centralization, security, and standardization of our computer systems and
collection programs. Our systems currently manage over $10 billion
worth of delinquent and current receivables of all types for our clients
and track over 100,000 related lawsuits and bankruptcy cases throughout
the United States. We have more than 140 programmers and technical
support personnel in our firm’s ITG division.
Our technology for collecting delinquent government receivables has
not been successfully duplicated by any other law firm. The software
applications we have developed enable us to continuously meet the
changing needs of the delinquent receivables collection process.
System Architecture
Our system is composed of logically organized and easily upgraded
telephone and data processing components. Reliable, international firms
with an extensive network of local vendors manufacture all system
hardware, allowing rapid component replacement or capacity expansion,
if needed.
Our system is technologically advanced and complex in its capabilities,
but it is not complicated to use. Design simplicity gives our system
flexibility and reliability. The system is based on a building block – or
modular component – principle. Linking modular components together
to form fully integrated system architecture permits rapid expansion, and
planned redundancy, while reducing hardware downtime.
The primary data processing and storage site for the firm’s CUBS
application is at IT Headquarters in San Antonio, Texas, with the backup
recovery site located in Austin, Texas.
The major components and connectivity of the CUBS architecture
include the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Secure FTP Server (for data file I/O)
Avaya phone system (with call processors, telephony switches,
media gateways and call management servers)
Cisco phone system (with core switches, voice and VM
gateways, call management servers, and internet connectivity)
Tandem server/processors with content load balancing
CUBS application production, test, and development servers
Netapp Filer (for secure data retrieval and loads)
SANS storage device
Dialers (CUBS and TouchStar)
Credit card transaction server
Call recording server (TouchStar)
Call accounting server (Symphony)
Generator and UPS boxes
With this scalable and redundant architecture in place, the firm is able to
meet the data processing and communication needs for multiple clients
while addressing requirements for security, WAN connectivity, broad
bandwidth, robustness, and business continuity (disaster recovery).
Interactive Voice Message System – 24 Hour Availability
We have interactive voice mail software (IVR) resident on our phone
system, along with our automated call distribution software. The IVR
programming directs the caller to the appropriate mailbox for various call
options by identifying the incoming client-specific toll-free number used.
The IVR provides defendants with several options, including informing
them of the anticipated time to contact with one of our collectors
(maximum wait time of 30 seconds). It allows defendants to leave a
message for the specific collector that contacted them; they may also
leave a general message, which will be forwarded to an appropriate
collector the following morning. This system operates 24 hours a day for
the convenience of any after-hours callers.
Documenting Account Activity
As collection activity is pursued on each account, the account history is
entered into our database to create an accurate and continuing record of
account activity and historical notes. The actual activity screen for our
customized Columbia Ultimate Business System (CUBS) collection
software (graphic on the next page) shows the current amount due,
including interest and collection cost. All collection or skip-tracing
activity is recorded by the collector for each account. Collection
managers can review collector activity on all accounts to assure that they
are providing quality customer care and performing all necessary steps to
collect the delinquency.
CUBS ACTIVITY SCREEN
Legal Resources to Assure Compliance to the Law
As a national law firm, Linebarger Goggan is uniquely qualified based
upon the legal resources we are able to bring to bear to assure
compliance with all local, state and federal laws and regulations and any
additional requirements as set forth by the City.
Attorneys
Currently, Linebarger Goggan has 109 attorneys located throughout
the country in our 45 offices. This vast network of licensed,
geographically diverse attorneys will ensure compliance in all
jurisdictions, including Kansas.
Legal Internal Subcommittee
In addition to the individually licensed attorneys, Linebarger Goggan has
an internal “Litigation and Legal Standards” subcommittee that
continually monitors legal issues and developments in all jurisdictions.
This subcommittee also reviews and approves the various collection
policies and procedures to ensure compliance with all necessary laws and
regulations.
Collector Training
All firm collectors complete a rigorous training program on all applicable
laws when they join the law firm and receive refresher courses on any
changes in laws, regulations, and procedures affecting collections. Our
collector training program is described in more detail in Chapter IV.
4.3.D. WHAT SETS LINEBARGER GOGGAN APART
FROM OTHER FIRMS
Best Practices Approach
Linebarger Goggan offers customized, technically advanced collection
methods that have performed successfully for our clients for 34 years.
Our collection programs feature:
•
In-house attorneys and legal staff—We employ 109 attorneys,
licensed and located in diverse geographic areas across the
country. This allows for broad-based legal and collection
coverage in jurisdictions across the nation by our own in-house
attorneys -- allowing us to retain better control, oversight
and continuity in handling collection matters by not having to
“outsource” collection efforts to external law firm entities.
•
Client responsiveness and team flexibility—We listen to our
clients and tailor our approach to meet or exceed their goals.
Our clients continually choose us over our competitors.
•
Proven, experienced leadership and management—Our partners
and managers instill a positive, professional, and demanding
work ethic. Our management team recognizes and rewards
performance that rises above industry standards.
•
Trained work force—We train our collectors to use a
collaborative, sensitive, yet firm approach when contacting
debtors. This approach has proven to be a highly successful
method of eliciting the maximum response from debtors.
•
Enhanced technology—We use our enhanced, collector-friendly
computer systems, along with the latest in telecommunications.
Using these systems, our collectors can easily make personal
contact with the defendant and inform them that a law firm is
contacting them, which is key to our success. We also maintain
online access to all nationally available information sources.
•
Regulatory awareness and compliance—Our regular compliance
training ensures that our managers and collectors remain current
on all federal/state laws and regulations governing the
collections industry.
Decades of Experience Collecting Delinquent
Government Receivables
Pursuing the collection of delinquent court fees and fines – and doing
it right and well – is an art form. The law firm must hold a specialized
understanding of the particular characteristics of that debt type, as well as
possessing intimate knowledge of the legal processes and procedures
required for collecting it. Linebarger Goggan is a pioneer in collecting
court fees and fines, and our expertise has been developed over years of
handling court collections for numerous court clients across the country.
Because the collection of delinquent court debt is so unique and
specialized, few collection providers or law firms possess the necessary
and desired expertise to effectively handle the collection process in such
a way as to meet necessary legal requirements and satisfy client
expectations. Linebarger Goggan has 34 years experience in
collecting this type of government receivable. We are one of the largest
law firms in the nation possessing the expertise in delinquent court debt
collections, and we routinely handle this process for clients across the
country. Our clients range from small towns and villages to the largest
of cities, counties, states, and even the federal government – and each
client receives unparalleled personal attention and service. We
understand every aspect of collecting delinquent court receivables and
we are able to provide insight, suggestions, and answers to questions or
issues that may arise during the collection process. Our open
communications will begin immediately upon contract award notification
and will continue consistently through the contractual relationship. It is
our intention to always make you feel that you have a reliable and
available partner in the process.
Unmatched Results and Success
Two factors contribute to our unparalleled success in collecting
delinquent government receivables. First, we are a law firm possessing
extensive experience in handling specialized court fees and fines
collection matters. Second, our philosophy is to never give up on our
efforts to collect the sums owed to our clients.
As reflected in examples in Chapter I, Linebarger Goggan achieves
superior results for our delinquent court fees and fines clients throughout
the nation. We honor the opportunity to demonstrate achievement of
similar results through collection efforts on behalf of your City.
Regional Resources and Commitment to the City
Because our law firm operates 45 offices nationwide, this broad
geographic diversity allows for a beneficial “local” connection to the
defendants and staff of your City.
Partner Scott McGlasson manages our local Kansas City regional office
and oversees client contracts in the region including operations in
Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma and Texas. As a
resident of Johnson County, he holds a personal and inherent
understanding of, and connection to, the regional values and ideals.
Mr. McGlasson is on-the-ground in your county and city, and is
personally available and accessible to your Court and to the citizens and
defendants you serve.
To our best abilities, it is always our intent to immerse ourselves within
the client’s local and regional fabric and culture to obtain the best
knowledge and understanding of local sentiment, attitudes, and important
daily matters. With this understanding, we believe our collection
successes are maximized for the benefit of the City.
Based upon current regional government clientele and the connections
that already exist throughout the region, we believe our firm will
provide distinct and measurable advantages to your City that will
directly translate into immediate benefits including: enhanced
revenues for your City; high levels of satisfaction for your defendants,
your City staff with whom we work, and your elected officials; and
effective and positive public and constituent relations resulting from our
diligent efforts.
Personal Contact and Availability
We build strong partnerships with our clients with the intent of retaining
those relationships for decades and lifetimes. We have gained the
respect and loyalty of our clients because they have confidence in our
people, our collection methods, and the results we achieve through our
strong client relations and partnerships.
From the date of notification of the contract award through the entire
term of the contract, Project Manager and Partner Scott McGlasson will
be available to the City for direct and personal communications
relating to the contract. Mr. McGlasson will be available to all City staff
involved in the actual collection processes, as well as available to any
City-elected or appointed official who may wish to make inquiry or
discuss the collection contract project.
Professional Recognition
Linebarger Goggan has been professionally evaluated by several wellknown independent parties and consistently receives high reviews.
•
Member of the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Business Council
and a Platinum Partner of USCM—a designation earned through
the award of three public-private partnership awards over a span
of six years. The former USCM President Mayor Douglas
Palmer stated, “any business that earns three public-private
partnership awards with USCM has to be doing something
right.”
•
Winner, U.S. Conference of Mayors’ 2007 Award for
Outstanding Achievement in partnership with the City of
Houston to redevelop blighted and abandoned properties in
inner-city neighborhoods. Roughly 500 properties have been
acquired by the Land Assemblage Redevelopment Authority for
development into affordable housing.
Linebarger Goggan accepting the USCM Award, 2007
•
Winner, U.S. Conference of Mayors’ 2004 Award for
Outstanding Achievement in Partnership with the City of
Chicago for collecting over $24 million in delinquent receivables
in less than two years and more than $141.6 million to date.
•
Winner, U.S. Conference of Mayors’ 2001 Award for Excellence
in Partnership with the City of Dallas – to date over $881.3
million collected in delinquent tax revenue for the city and
school district of Dallas.
•
Ranked by our clients as “Excellent” in a recent survey
conducted by Dun & Bradstreet.
Memberships and Certifications
Linebarger Goggan is a member of the American Collectors’ Association
(ACA) in several states, which also grants our law offices in those states
membership in ACA International, the Association of Credit and
Collection Professionals. We also participate in the ACA Healthcare
Services Program, Members’ Attorney Program and Government
Services Program.
We are corporate members of the National Association of Counties and
the U.S. Conference of Mayors. In addition, we actively participate in a
multitude of other organizations throughout the country in order to
support our clients and their various public interest and educational
opportunities.
National Memberships
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
ACA International
ACA Healthcare Services
ACA Government Services Program
ACA Members’ Attorneys Program
CLLA – Commercial Law League of America
USCM – United States Conference of Mayors
NACO – National Association of Counties
NACM – National Association of Court Management
NALEO – National Association of Latino Elected Officials
NOBCO – National Association of Black County Officials
State Bar Associations
Arkansas
Colorado
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Illinois
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maryland
Massachusetts
Missouri
Nevada
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Virginia
Equal Opportunity Employer
Linebarger Goggan is an Equal Opportunity Employer and is committed
to supporting diversity in its workforce. Forty-five percent of ownership
in the firm is held by women and minorities.
The firm does not discriminate against any partner, employee or
applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, gender, age,
disability, or sexual orientation. This policy applies to the following:
employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of
compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. All
of Linebarger Goggan’s solicitations or advertisements for employees
state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for
employment without regard for race, color, religion, gender, age,
disability, or sexual orientation.
We believe that it is important that our organization be as diversified as
the communities in which we collect. No other law firm in our business
can match our commitment to affirmative action and diversity.
The gender and ethnic diversity of our firm employees is depicted in the
pie charts below to demonstrate our commitment to providing
opportunities for women and minorities, both within our firm and in the
communities we service.
LINEBARGER GOGGAN GENDER AND ETHNICITY FIRM WIDE
Financial Strength and Capability
Our firm has been engaged in the collection of government receivables
for 34 years. We possess the financial resources necessary to meet and
exceed the requirements of the City. Our financial position is strong, and
our size and historic performance give us access to substantial financial
resources that may be necessary to fully represent our clients.
Linebarger Goggan and its predecessor firms have never filed for
bankruptcy protection and have never taken any actions with respect to
insolvency, reorganization, receivership, etc. We can provide any
additional information the City may require to demonstrate our ability to
perform the work outlined in our proposal.
Insurance Coverage
Linebarger Goggan maintains an insurance policy in place to cover
professional liability in amounts of $3 million, general liability in
amounts of $1 million, and employee negligence in amounts of $2
million. Our automotive and worker’s compensation insurance is set at
$1 million each. If necessary, we will increase any coverage that we
currently possess to meet the City’s requirements.
Insurance shall be maintained for the duration of the contract. No
policies will be cancelled without prior notice to the City of at least 30
days. Acord Certificates for our current insurance policies can be
provided upon request.
4.3.E. PAST OR PENDING LAWSUITS
A list of the firm’s past and pending litigation for Linebarger Goggan is
provided in Exhibit A.
When considering the overall volume of litigation and complaints, this
must be viewed with some context, and not simply on a purely numerical
basis. Furthermore, the actual merit of the litigation or complaint must
be considered. A large majority of litigation and alleged complaints
against the firm are ultimately either dismissed by the Court or not
pursued on the basis of being unwarranted and without merit. As
previously stated in other sections, our law firm:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
has been in business since 1976
represents more than 2,000 government clients across the U.S.
collects more than $1 billion each year for clients
manages more than $10 billion in government receivables
collects accounts in all 50 states
manages more than 24 million accounts in our databases
services an average of 2,500,000 accounts per month
receives approximately 200,000 new accounts for collection each
month
•
routinely manages in excess of 100,000 client lawsuits – a
majority of which involve delinquent ad valorem / real estate tax
collections wherein the litigant automatically includes every
known or unknown party, including Linebarger Goggan, as a
defendant in their lawsuit regardless of true merit.
All things considered, and in the appropriate context, we believe that our
record of compliance speaks highly of our commitment to excellence.
Likewise, it is our belief that the relatively minimal volume of
complaints and litigation against our law firm reflects the integrity and
overall successful collection philosophy that our law firm will bring to
your Court.
Lastly, as a general proposition, handling the collection efforts on a court
fees and fines portfolio such as that for which your City seeks our
services is relatively litigation and complaint free due to the nature of the
underlying debt and the various remedies available for resolution of the
matter. Based upon our years of experience in this area, we anticipate
minimal complaints as we collect on behalf of your City.
Compliance with Collection Laws and Regulations
Linebarger Goggan has an excellent record of compliance with all laws
and regulations regarding collections. No contract has ever been
terminated due to inappropriate collection activities on the part of our
employees or the inability of the law firm to perform as specified in a
contract. In addition, we have never had a judgment taken against our
law firm for violating any laws or regulations governing our collection
efforts.
As we actively pursue collection activities and/or file lawsuits (mainly
relating to ad valorem / real property tax matters involving foreclosure
proceedings) on behalf of our clients to collect their delinquent
receivables, we do become involved as a party to a lawsuit on occasion.
In those instances in which we are involved as a party to a lawsuit, we
strenuously defend our position based upon the confidence in our
policies and procedures, as well as the years and years of our historically
clean track record of compliance.
No Decrees or Judgments
No cases have been decided against the firm as the result of trial. Some
of the suits described below in which the law firm was a defendant were
settled, often for nominal damages less than the costs of a defense.
After 34 years of providing professional collection services to our
clients, Linebarger Goggan has never had a Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) judgment or a Federal Trade Commission decree
entered against it. Additionally, Linebarger Goggan has not had any
order, judgment, or decree of any Federal or State authority barring,
suspending, or otherwise limiting the right of our firm to engage in any
business practice or activity issued against it during this time period.
Law Firm Initiatives to Ensure Highest Ethical Standards
The law firm has made an uncompromising commitment to adhere to the
highest ethical standards in the collection industry. To achieve that goal,
we implemented several structural and management changes to ensure
that an incident of this nature will never occur again. Among those
changes are:
•
retention of an outside Ethics Advisor, who is a former chair of
the State Bar of Texas, the professional organization responsible
for licensing and oversight of all attorneys’ professional behavior
in Texas
•
establishment of an in-house general counsel who developed and
implemented the firm’s current code of ethics; with 18 years as a
former county attorney providing legal counsel to elected
officials on civil matters, he is responsible for monitoring firm
compliance with the code of ethics
•
formal adoption of the code of ethics applicable to all employees
and representatives associated with the firm
•
ongoing training and education of all employees and
representatives associated with the firm
4.3.F. PAST OR PENDING COMPLAINTS
From an overall historical perspective, very few grievances have been
made against the firm. A list of all grievances on file against the firm or
its attorneys has been provided in Exhibit A.
As seen throughout the list, a majority of the grievances have been
dismissed or closed, or no further information or ruling has been
provided since the grievance was made. As complaints are normally
lodged with regulatory agencies, a non-response is often synonymous
with a dismissal or acknowledgement that the complaint is without merit.
Please see Section 4.3.E above for additional commentary and context.
CHAPTER III
RFQ ITEM 4.4
Technical Ability
O
ur firm’s collection philosophy is to maximize revenue with the
least administrative burden to our clients and to work in full
compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP (Linebarger Goggan) achieves this goal
by tailoring our comprehensive services to the client’s criteria, retaining
professional and courteous legal and collection personnel, developing
and supporting the most advanced collection technology systems
available, and maintaining personal communications with our clients and
the communities they serve.
4.4.A. LEGAL SERVICES
Legal Collection Services
Linebarger Goggan provides a full range of comprehensive collection
services to our government entity clientele. Although it is not always
necessary that collection services be pursued through “legal / litigation”
methods, there are distinct advantages to a government client when
contracting with a law firm for collection services.
When your city contracts with Linebarger Goggan, an attorney-client
relationship is created. Through this relationship, we pursue collection
efforts diligently on our client’s behalf. Further, we hold our client
information in strict confidence – a result of our ethical obligations, as
well as our unique technological capabilities with regard to data and
information security.
Upon receipt of client data and account information, we commence
processing and collection efforts in earnest. All written communications
and collection letters to delinquent defendants appears on law firm
letterhead. All non-written communications are clearly identified as
being from a law firm. As a result, defendants generally perceive these
communications as being relatively serious and invoking a necessary and
immediate response.
In the event a defendant has moved or is otherwise “lost”, our law firm
utilizes highly effective and efficient skip-tracing methods intended to
determine new location information and find the lost defendants.
All communications from our law firm are intended to provide notice to
the delinquent defendant that an account remains open and unpaid and
provide that defendant with information and details allowing and
encouraging the defendant to resolve the account through payment
options or other resolution options approved by the court.
Chapter III - Page 1
Our comprehensive collection services are proven to increase revenues,
assist defendants in resolving their outstanding obligations, and
reducing the volume of unresolved cases on the court docket.
Detailed information relating to our collection procedures is provided
further in this chapter in the section titled 4.4.C. Collection Procedures.
Additional Legal Services
In addition to the firm’s collection services, Linebarger Goggan attorneys
routinely provide clients with legal advice and counsel on collection
matters and keep them apprised of changes in the law that may affect
their collection processes. Because of their extensive legal training,
continuing education, and experience, they can evaluate and interpret the
vast and complex maze of federal and state statutes, regulations, court
decisions, and administrative rulings that govern the collection of
delinquent receivables. These services are provided at no additional
cost to the City of Overland Park (City).
Litigation
Due to the general nature of collecting municipal court debt (i.e.,
accounts with outstanding or potential warrants, but generally without
civil judgments that allow collection through legal means such as wage
garnishment and other various civil remedies), it is not anticipated that
litigation will be a routinely requested or necessary service that will be of
interest to your City. In the event some portion of the City’s delinquent
court debt portfolio may lend itself to the need for litigation services, we
will implement this service into the collection program following
discussion and approval of the procedures with your City.
4.4.B. COMMUNITY RELATIONS
Through years and decades of representing government entity clients,
Linebarger Goggan understands the sensitivities and issues that may
arise as we pursue collection efforts on behalf of your City, where
defendants are constituents, voters, and often neighbors. Managing
Partner Scott McGlasson resides in Johnson County and is in touch with
the overall pulse of the Overland Park area. Through this familiarity and
community awareness, issues relating to this collection project may be
handled and resolved in a relevant and positive manner that is consistent
with the ideals and values of the community.
The firm maintains the highest levels of integrity and professionalism
when dealing with defendants, City staff and elected officials, and media
inquiries. Through these continuing professional and courteous
interactions, positive public relations are developed and enhanced for
the City and our law firm.
As Overland Park citizenry become increasingly informed and aware of
the City’s efforts to collect on delinquent court fees and fines, they will
begin to understand – and even support – the need to collect these unpaid
sums in an effort to reverse the devastating impact of this unpaid debt
burden on the City budget. Past experience with numerous court fees
and fines clients has shown our firm that citizens look positively on
these efforts to collect the money owed to the City, which can be
funneled into enhanced services and programs.
Linebarger Goggan is prepared to discuss any additional community
relations-related services the City feels would assist in the effort to
collect delinquent fees and fines.
4.4.C. COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Linebarger Goggan offers the City a turnkey solution for collecting
delinquent fees and fines. Operational tasks include developing effective
and customized mailings, skip tracing, outbound call campaigns,
payment processing, and providing information to the City via regular
management reports and communication with the City’s personnel. Our
service will also include all equipment (hardware and software),
telecommunications devices, insurance, and security services necessary
to complete collections tasks.
Sample Work Plan
The following sample work plan outlines the general activities that
would be implemented upon receiving the City’s approval. The actual
work plan varies from client to client, and the City’s work plan will be
tailored to its specific needs.
Step-By-Step Description
• Load the City’s referral information into the firm’s database, and
acknowledge all accounts received.
•
Confirm and/or update all available addresses for defendants prior to
the first mailing using integrated skip-tracing software.
•
Generate letters for newly placed accounts. Included with these
mailings are all active delinquent accounts in the Linebarger Goggan
database belonging to a particular defendant.
•
Mail firmly worded collection notices approved by the City – in
English and Spanish – to all defendants, instructing them on payment
options and procedures. The notices clearly identify the City as the
client and contain the total amount due, including fees, fines, and
collection fee, if applicable. They also warn that failure to pay the
outstanding amount will result in a recommendation to the City that
it use all possible enforcement mechanisms to collect the amount
owed.
•
Send a series of stronger, follow-up letters to those individuals who
do not pay or respond as required. All collection notices will be
approved by the City prior to use.
•
Scan bar codes on returned mail, update the account files, and send
the returned mail file to the skip-tracing unit.
•
Research bad defendant addresses, using online skip-tracing tools to
identify the correct telephone numbers and addresses.
•
Update all defendant information and forward to the collection
queue.
•
Contact all accounts with valid phone numbers. Coordinated with all
mailings, the telephone collectors will make repeated efforts to
contact the defendant to secure full payment of their delinquent fees
and fines owed to the City. Linebarger Goggan has a professional
call center staff that works weekdays, nights, and Saturdays.
•
After the initial mailing and telephone contact phase, all accounts are
evaluated and prioritized to maximize results.
•
Maintain a detailed activity and payment history on every account.
Defendants with broken promises to pay (i.e., payment plans in
default) are contacted promptly.
•
Apply all legal and ethical enforcement mechanisms, as authorized
and approved by the City.
•
Work with the City’s staff to find other methods for enhancing the
collection program, such as media campaigns and community
relations efforts.
•
Identify uncollectibles (such as deceased or incarcerated defendants)
and return those accounts to the City with appropriate documentation
and recommendations on future actions, as instructed.
•
Submit management reports that provide details on collection
activities.
The Linebarger Goggan collection process starts with the transfer and
initial placement of delinquent accounts from the City to the law firm.
Once the data has been transferred and confirmed as accurate, a twophased approach is implemented: skip tracing and defendant contact
processing. Within each of these phases, distinct events must occur to
make the collection process comprehensive and effective.
We have included a general flowchart of our collection process on the
following page. This process will be evaluated following the initial
collection phase and adjusted to maximize collections based upon the
portfolio's specific characteristics.
It is important to note that the Linebarger Goggan collection processes
are the same for all defendants and all accounts, regardless of the
dollar value of any particular account. By zealously pursuing collection
efforts in this manner, we routinely collect accounts on behalf of our
clients that other collection vendors and law firms simply would not
even be pursuing.
LINEBARGER GOGGAN COLLECTION PROCESS
Initial Placement
Linebarger Goggan accepts the electronic file transfer for accounts being
placed with it for collection.
NCOA Search
The placement automatically generates a request to the National Change
of Address database for current address information and a request to a
national database for phone and other related data. Information is
returned within 24 hours and includes address standardization, ZIP+4+2,
and phone numbers. ZIP data is used for collection notice mailings and
other related correspondence to increase the probability of delivery and
collection of the debt.
Confirm Telephone Number
The law firm utilizes multiple national skip tracing databases to secure
accurate telephone numbers. We incorporate an automated process
within our account management system to systematically scan these
databases in the event an initial or new contact number is needed. This
process will find the highest probable phone match to maximize the
chances of obtaining a positive hit. This data is then loaded into our
system with the previous data remaining captured to both track our
contact/skip-tracing history as well as ensuring the elimination of
duplicative requests.
In the event our automated skip-tracing processes do not locate a valid
telephone number, the account moves to our interactive skip-tracing unit.
This unit of well-trained, experienced skip tracers has on-line access to
public and proprietary databases. By searching these databases, they are
able to obtain information and leads that allow them to find missing
information by drawing conclusions that would not surface from an
automated search.
Record New Data
The defendant's account data is updated from the results of the various
electronic data searches, and our efforts to contact each defendant begin.
The initial notice is sent to the defendant after receiving the placement
from the City. If contact is not established, the account moves directly to
the advanced skip-tracing process.
Collection Notices
The initial notice is prepared and mailed to the defendant. If contact is
not established, the account moves directly to the advanced skip-tracing
process. Additional collection notices are queued and sent if the
defendant does not respond as requested.
All collection notices will inform the defendant that the account has been
placed with our law firm and provide a toll-free phone number for the
defendant’s use and convenience. A detachable payment coupon and
return envelope is standard with all collection notices. The format and
language shall be approved by the City.
Returned Mail/Address Correction
The U.S. Postal Service returns collection notices that are undeliverable.
All Linebarger Goggan notices are mailed with instructions to the U.S.
Postal Service to provide “change of address/address correction”
information if the defendant has moved and left a forwarding address.
When returned, our Data Control Section will process these letters and
update the account file with the new address information so that new
collection notices can be sent out based upon the updated information.
Notices with no forwarding address will also be flagged. Notices that
produce responses from defendants are directed to telephone collectors
for processing.
Dialer Campaign
Linebarger Goggan’s customized Columbia Ultimate Business Systems
(CUBS) software system is fully integrated with our predictive dialers.
Result codes generated by the dialing campaigns are automatically
uploaded to the CUBS system to re-status and move accounts to the
collection phase.
Once the new account data is recorded, repeated proactive attempts to
contact the defendant begin in earnest. Accounts with good phone
numbers are processed to phone campaigns and passed to individual
collectors.
Outbound and Inbound Call Activities
Dialer outbound calls are continuously distributed to professional
collectors who make contact with the defendant. The collector will
verify the defendant’s identity, confirm basic information, and initiate a
dialogue to resolve the delinquent account through: payment in full,
payment arrangement, administrative resolution, or other case resolution,
as approved by the City.
Collectors also handle all inbound phone calls resulting from inquiries on
a mailing, other correspondence, or payment plans.
The Dialer can call all supplied phone numbers, including home, work (if
allowed under the applicable law of the jurisdiction), and “can be
reached at” numbers, as well as any other numbers that have been
provided to the dialer database. If the telephone campaign determines
that the numbers in the database are incorrect or disconnected, the
account is forwarded to our tiered series of databases for skip tracing.
Once an accurate number is identified, the collection process starts again.
Dialer campaigns will be run regularly to obtain payment in full from the
defendant; campaigns will be staggered to maximize the potential
likelihood of contact with the defendant.
If contact is not established during any of these campaigns, the account
will move directly to the skip-tracing process to locate a better phone
number and address. Linebarger Goggan’s collection campaigns and
collection system are 200 to 300 percent more efficient than regular
manual collection efforts. We have included a flowchart of our dialer
campaign process on the following page.
DIALER CAMPAIGN PROCESS
Toll-Free Numbers for Incoming Calls
During mailing periods, our call center will respond to all defendant calls
daily. Linebarger Goggan provides a toll-free number for the
convenience of defendants. The call center staff works from 7:00 am to
9:00 pm, Monday through Thursday; from 7:00 am to 5:00 pm on
Friday; and from 8:00 am to noon on Saturday (CDT). An interactive
voice mail system operates after hours to assist callers. The defendant
may leave a message for a specific collector, who will contact him/her on
the following business day.
The nature of the incoming calls varies and requires a well-trained staff
with the attitude to help defendants resolve problems and meet their
financial responsibilities. With our experience in dealing with
defendants and their related problems, we serve our clients by providing
prompt resolution by telephone, saving defendants time and alleviating
their frustrations.
Interactive Skip-Tracing Process
If the law firm's automated process fails to produce a telephone number,
the account moves to the interactive skip-tracing unit. This unit of
well-trained, experienced researchers possesses excellent telephone
skills, inquisitive minds, and the persistence to stay with the search until
the missing debtor is located. These sources give Linebarger Goggan’s
skip tracers information and leads that allow them to draw conclusions
that would not surface from an automated search of databases.
Linebarger Goggan’s skip-tracing agents have online, interactive access
to most of the major companies in the automated skip-tracing business,
as well as state and local agencies, including (but not limited to):
•
•
•
NCOA from Lexis Nexis
Lexis Nexis Best Address
Cognitive Data
All online sources are stored in our master data files. The firm has
designed and enhanced algorithms that combine only pertinent skip-trace
data from all available online sources onto a single skip-tracing screen.
This enhancement greatly increases skip tracing productivity.
These skip-tracing features allow collectors to obtain phone numbers for
known debtor addresses online. They also have the capability to access
national skip-tracing databases for every state, city, and zip code from
last known address to new geographic locations.
Accommodating Special Defendant Needs
Non-English Speaking Defendants
Most of our collectors are bilingual, while some are trilingual. Spanish
language translation is available for all communications with defendants,
including but not limited to, written, verbal, and telephone
communications.
The San Antonio Call Center will manage the collection process for the
City. This call center staff is 50% bilingual in English and Spanish.
There are also several collectors that speak Creole, German, French and
Vietnamese.
In addition, there are more than 120 bilingual collectors in our seven call
centers around the nation, any of which can provide assistance to the
City team if necessary. The additional languages spoken that are not
listed above are Arabic, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, and Urdu.
Accommodating Hearing Impaired or Blind Defendants
Usually defendants with speech or hearing impairments will use a TDD
service (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf), and they may contact
us through those phone systems. If available, we can print the City’s
TDD phone access number on all law firm collection notices for the
convenience of any hearing-impaired defendants. If necessary, we can
also communicate with these individuals via email in real time, while
accessing the relevant collection data from our system to inform them of
the charges/fees outstanding.
All communications with blind defendants (or with individuals with
extremely impaired sight) will be handled by telephone, after the initial
contact by collection letter, unless written documentation is required.
Collection Status Reporting
As previously described in Chapter I, we can provide reports at any
interval the City requires. In addition, the City may access collection
data details and statuses from our CUBS collection system via encrypted
session over the Internet.
Handling Deposits and Reporting Payments to the City
When collecting court debt accounts where there is the possibility of a
warrant outstanding, it is critically important to handle these matters in a
timely manner. It is always the intent of Linebarger Goggan to
immediately report and forward collected funds to the possession of the
City at the earliest possible opportunity. By notifying the City and
getting the funds into the City’s possession at the earliest opportunity, the
City is able to immediately process any warrant recall or other internal
procedure in a timely fashion and without delay. This critical process
provides protection to all parties involved – the defendant; the Court;
and Linebarger Goggan – and is intended to prevent the possibility of
any defendant being arrested on a warrant that remains active after
payment of the outstanding account balance.
During the implementation process, Linebarger Goggan will focus
attention to this issue and develop a notification and fund remittance and
disbursement plan that will meet the mutual needs, and provide the
highest level of protection to the City and our law firm.
4.4.D. SETTLEMENT PROCEDURES
Linebarger Goggan will not unilaterally settle any City account without
specific authority and approval. Because the accounts we anticipate
receiving for collection from the City are delinquent court fees and fines
accounts, we understand that the Court retains full jurisdiction and
control over the defendant, the underlying citation, the fines due to the
Court and, in some instances, over the outstanding warrant issued against
the defendant. As a result, we do not believe that we have the authority
to negotiate nor settle any account without specific direction and
instruction.
In the event the City or Court wishes to provide specific settlement
authority policies and procedures, Linebarger Goggan will be happy to
implement those policies into our collection strategies and procedures.
4.4.E. ACCEPTING ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF
ACCOUNTS
As previously stated in Chapter I, we can accept transfer files in most
text or XML file structures, in addition to client-defined fixed length
formats.
4.4.F. PAYMENTS TO THE CITY
We will make remittance payments to the City on any schedule deemed
necessary (daily, weekly, monthly, etc.). We will meet with City
representatives during the implementation stages of this contract to
determine preferences and requirements. We will also develop a
payment processing plan and a remittance plan schedule that will meet
the City’s expectations and needs.
Payment Processing Options
Linebarger Goggan has the capability to handle payments from
defendants in a wide variety of options. We will meet with
representatives of the City during implementation stages of this contract
to determine preferences and develop a payment processing plan that will
meet the City’s expectations and needs. We understand that the most
important goal in this context is to simply receive payment from the
defendant. In this regard, we always offer a variety of payment options
that are convenient and will encourage payment from the defendant.
Among Municipal Court clients, it is often a generally accepted
preference of courts that all payments from defendants be directed from
the defendant directly to the City. The advantages to the City in
receiving payments directly from the defendant include, among others,
the City’s immediate deposit and access to the funds, immediate
application of the payment funds to the defendant’s account, and
immediate processing and recall of any outstanding warrant against the
defendant. Linebarger Goggan is able to accommodate this payment
option if the City so desires.
A detachable payment coupon and return envelope are standard with all
Linebarger Goggan collection notices. If defendants wish to pay in
person, they will be directed to the City’s existing payment processing
center. Defendants will also be informed of any additional payment
options offered by the City (by mail, phone, web site, etc.).
Remittance and Disbursement of Funds
Linebarger Goggan will remit and disperse any collected funds to the
City through electronic funds transfer on any schedule required by the
City (daily, weekly, semi-monthly, etc.).
Resolving Payment Anomalies
Overpayments
If an overpayment has been made, we will adhere to the instructions
provided by the City for handling overpayments.
Underpayments
We generally treat underpayments as partial payments and apply the
amount to the account, while collection efforts continue to collect the
remaining balance through ongoing partial payment arrangements.
Non-Sufficient Funds
Upon notice of a check returned for non-sufficient funds, the defendant is
informed that the check will not clear the bank. This includes stop
payments, closed accounts, credit card charge-backs, etc. after
notification the electronic transaction is resubmitted.
Unidentified Payments
In the improbable event of an unidentified payment, the payment will be
researched and handled as per the City’s instructions.
Lost or Stolen Payments
In the unlikely event that a payment is lost or stolen, Linebarger Goggan
will investigate and report the incident within 24 hours. The issue will
be resolved expeditiously to the satisfaction of the City.
CHAPTER IV
RFQ ITEM 4.5
Key Personnel and Subcontractors
Performing Services
T
he key to Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP’s
(Linebarger Goggan) success has and always will be its human
capital, from the attorneys who oversee and manage the collection
programs, to the professional collection staff who interface with
defendants on a daily basis, and the IT personnel who process the data
and maintain the collection software programs.
Linebarger Goggan proposes a management team for the Overland Park,
Kansas (City) project comprised of individuals with an in-depth working
knowledge of the collection process and the most advanced collection
systems available. The City team will provide a centrally managed
approach supported by line personnel trained in specific areas of the
collection process. By capitalizing on the unique strengths of each
member, the law firm ensures the highest possible level of service.
Our proposed team for this project will provide strong management and
oversight to all law firm personnel performing duties on behalf of the
City under this contract. This team is comprised of individuals
possessing:
•
in-depth working knowledge of the most technologically advanced
collection systems available
•
experience and familiarity with the practices of the legal and
collection communities within Kansas and throughout the United
States
•
full and complete understanding of the sensitivities and practicalities
required of our law firm personnel when interacting with the City’s
debtors, where these debtors are also your neighbors and constituents
4.5.A. PROJECT ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
The diagram on the following page illustrates the organizational structure
proposed for managing the City project headed by Partner Scott
McGlasson.
Chapter IV - Page 1
CITY OF OVERLAND PARK TEAM ORGANIZATIONAL CHART
Firm Wide Organizational Chart
In addition to having direct contact with the firm’s assigned project team,
the City will also have access to the resources and breadth of experience
of a full-service, national collection law firm. The firm’s state-of-the-art
technology contributes to our ability to serve our clients efficiently and
to keep them informed on all matters pertaining to their contracts. The
organization chart on the following page delineates Linebarger Goggan’s
firm-wide management and organizational structure.
Chapter IV - Page 2
LINEBARGER GOGGAN ORGANIZATION CHART
Use of Subcontractors
If awarded this contract, Linebarger Goggan will serve as the primary
contractor for this project and all core functions and duties will be
performed by Linebarger Goggan personnel. If it is determined a
subcontractor is required at any point during the project’s duration, we
will seek approval from the Court before any duties are assigned outside
of the firm.
Chapter IV - Page 3
4.5.B. KEY STAFF QUALIFICATIONS
Biographies and Experience
Scott McGlasson, Partner, grew up in a small rural community in
northeast Kansas. He graduated from Emporia State University in 1986
receiving a B.S. dual degree(s) in Business Administration and
Marketing with a Communications minor. Following graduation, he
began his collections career working as an Account Representative and
Internal Dealership Auditor with General Motors Acceptance
Corporation where he was responsible for collection of delinquent credit
accounts as well as for auditing regional GM dealerships.
Mr. McGlasson attended Washburn University School of Law and
received his J.D., with honors in 1991. He was admitted to practice law
in the State of Kansas in 1991 and immediately was drawn to a collection
practice and representation of creditors. His solo practice in Kansas
consisted almost exclusively of the representation of creditors in
collection and bankruptcy related matters. Mr. McGlasson’s practice
emphasized the leveraged utilization of technology to handle the highvolume practice in a manner allowing efficiency and effectiveness for the
benefit of his clientele. In addition to providing service to his client base
through direct representation, Mr. McGlasson also assisted in the
development and implementation of the electronic filing system project
in the Kansas Courts to allow increased efficiency of case-flow through
the Court system.
In 2001, Mr. McGlasson left his solo practice for Texas where he worked
as in-house counsel with the Texas Bankers Association. His
responsibilities included providing legal assistance to member banks
relating to federal and state compliance issues and daily bank operational
issues. He was also a registered lobbyist and provided legislative
assistance in the area of banking legislation.
In 2003, Mr. McGlasson joined Linebarger Goggan in the law firm’s
headquarter office in Austin, Texas, where his responsibilities included
various projects involving the collection of Texas court fees and fines,
state and federal-level receivables, and non-Texas-based collections in
several Midwestern states. Scott opened the firm’s Kansas City regional
office in 2006 and currently manages that office and its operations. He
provides advice and counsel to the law firm on all Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act issues and serves on the firm’s Litigation and Legal
Standards Subcommittee, which is responsible for oversight of law firm
policies and procedures relating to collections. He represents the firm in
the ACA International Member Attorney Program and is a member of
the Commercial Law League of America.
Mr. McGlasson is admitted to practice in Kansas, Arkansas, Kentucky,
Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas.
Chapter IV - Page 4
Mr. McGlasson oversees contracts for the following clients:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Wyandotte County/Kansas City (KS)
State of Kansas Department of Revenue (KS)
Kansas City (MO)
Little Rock (AR)
Louisville-Jefferson County Metropolitan Government (KY)
Jonesboro (AR)
Metropolitan Ambulance Services Trust (MO)
Saint Louis (MO)
Tulsa (OK)
Tulsa Traffic (OK)
Michael T. Vallandingham, Partner, Management Committee Member,
and Chief Marketing Officer for Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson,
LLP, graduated from Angelo State University in 1989 with a Bachelor of
Business Administration in Marketing, and went on to graduate Cum
Laude from Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 1993 with a Juris Doctor.
He is licensed to practice law in the State of Texas.
Mike joined Linebarger Goggan in 1993. He began in the firm’s Tyler,
Texas office and managed the representation of several of its East Texas
clients. He quickly made his mark by successfully servicing the firm’s
existing clientele and consistently demonstrating his ability to develop
new business.
In 1995, Mike assisted the firm in obtaining its first student loan
collection contract, which ultimately led to his being transferred to the
firm’s Austin, Texas offices to take over management responsibility for
the program.
In 1998, Mr. Vallandingham was assigned the responsibility for
implementing and overseeing the firm’s national marketing effort, as
well as its fees and fines collection services division. The firm has
enjoyed steady growth and expansion as a result of the overwhelming
success on each front.
His consistent performance in the areas of marketing and management
earned him a place on the firm’s Management Committee in 2004. Mr.
Vallandingham’s current organizational memberships include ACA
International, Commercial Law League of America, State Bar of Texas
and Adopt-A-Classroom (Board of Trustees).
CollectionIndustry.com named Mike Vallandingham as one of the
collection industry’s Young Guns for 2005. This program highlights the
careers of leaders who will help guide industry thinking in the new
millennium. Nominations for the awards were received from around the
world.
Chapter IV - Page 5
Mr. Vallandingham oversees contracts for the following clients:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
State of California Department of General Services
State of California Franchise Tax Board
Imperial County (CA)
Los Angeles County Counsel (CA)
Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector (CA)
Orange County (CA)
Sonoma County Treasurer (CA)
Ventura County Probation Agency (CA)
Michael D. Brown, Medical Marketing Director, received a B.A. in
Economics in 2001 from the University of Missouri, St. Louis. He
joined Linebarger Goggan in 2002 and was responsible for the daily
operations of the San Antonio Collection Center before becoming
Collection Director in the firm’s Chicago Office. He has extensive
experience in collections and has been employed in this field since 1990.
Before joining the firm he was Director of Credit and Collections for
Felco Autolease. He also served as Assistant Vice President-Senior
Collections Manager for Firstar Bank in Missouri. He is presently a
member of the Consumer Bankers Association.
Richard H. Pachecano, CISA, Director of Fees and Fines, received a
B.B.A. in Accounting and Business Data Systems from the University of
Texas at San Antonio in 1985 and has been a Certified Information
Systems Auditor since 2000. He joined Linebarger Goggan in 1985, and
served as Chief Information Officer until 2007, directing the
development of our technology infrastructure. Today he leads the firm’s
fastest growing IT sector, the fees and fines division. His understanding
of how technology can interface with collections and legal practices to
produce results for Linebarger Goggan’s clients positions him to be the
perfect candidate to lead this division of the firm.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Pachecano served as Deputy Director of
Information Systems for Bexar County (San Antonio) and as
Applications Manager, responsible for the County's Financial, Tax
Collections, and Automobile Registration Systems. He is a member of
the Texas Association of Assessing Officers and the Information
Systems Audit and Control Association.
Mr. Pachecano has directed the implementation and collection programs
for several state clients including California, Illinois and Kansas, as well
as some of our largest municipal clients.
Richard C. Haass, CISA, Chief Technology Officer, oversees system
management, data security, and office operations for Linebarger
Goggan’s national Information Technology Group. He is a Certified
Information Systems Auditor and stays current with all new technology
developments through a variety of professional continuing education
Chapter IV - Page 6
courses. He formerly served as the IT operations manager for the firm’s
Houston office, where he was responsible for preparation and oversight
of office budgets and client work plans, in addition to managing local
MIS and personal property department. Prior to that, Mr. Haass was the
Office and Area Manager for the firm’s Corpus Christi office.
Mr. Haass earned his Bachelor of Business Administration degree from
Texas A&I University in 1990. He is a member of the Information
Systems Audit & Control Association (ISACA) and is also part of the
local San Antonio/South Texas Chapter.
Don Crawford, Data Processing Manager, has had a career in the
information technology industry that has spanned more than 20 years,
with 15 of those years as a systems engineer with IBM. Mr. Crawford
joined Linebarger Goggan’s Information Technology Group in 2001 and
has a wide range of experience in installation and support of hardware
and software and customer satisfaction. He has worked as an auditor,
end user support educator, programmer, independent consultant, systems
analyst, project leader, and manager in the computer industry. He
coordinates all file transfer activities with our clients’ third-party
software vendors or their information technology departments to
facilitate the export the delinquent account information to our CUBS
system. This helps our clients streamline their export and reporting
processes.
John M. Wilson, San Antonio Call Center Director of Operations, joined
Linebarger Goggan in November 2003. He graduated from Southern
Methodist University in 1976 with a B.S. in Business Administration.
He has been in the collection industry for over 30 years.
Mr. Wilson started as a collector with Capital Credit Corporation
handling private label receivables. He was promoted through the ranks
to Branch Manager and National Training Director. He joined THE
Finance Company and Conseco/GreenTree Finance, as the Regional and
Collection Manager, overseeing call center operations for auto and
mobile home loans. He developed considerable medical receivable
experience while working at Creditors Mercantile and Consolidated
Accounts Management, holding positions of Audit Specialist, Regional
Manager, and ultimately Chief Operating Officer.
4.5.C. RESUMES OF KEY PERSONNEL
The resumes of each of the management team members are provided in
Exhibit B.
4.5.D. TRAINING PROGRAM
Training is an integral part of the firm’s activities and one of the keys to
its high productivity and low incidence of complaints. Linebarger
Chapter IV - Page 7
Goggan requires job-specific training for each collector at every stage of
employment. All laws, regulations, and standards governing collection
activity are part of the training process. All personnel, regardless of
position, will have training sessions on these important areas.
Because full compliance with the law is the focus of the firm’s training
programs, a key responsibility of Linebarger Goggan management is
keeping the company’s employees abreast of the changing legislative
landscape. The firm’s upper-level managers monitor legislation and
changes in national and state laws, rules, and regulations related to the
debt collection industry.
New Hire Training
It takes a minimum of two weeks to hire and train an employee. The first
step is to test the potential employee’s knowledge of the laws affecting
the collection program to which he or she will be assigned. Once they
have mastered that information, they move to interactive collection
training and client-specific collection procedures and regulations.
Linebarger Goggan’s collection staff is fully trained in the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Privacy Act, along with all
other relevant federal and state collection laws and regulations. From
there, they receive an initial orientation and training session using
interactive training software that focuses on our system’s operations.
Collection training modules include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
client-specific training
laws and regulations governing client-specific receivables
collection system usage
collection techniques
skip tracing
telephone etiquette
Our collection floor managers provide one-on-one training and
continuously monitor collector activities thereafter.
Beginning with new-hire training and continuing with employee
refresher training, the focus of the firm’s training program is on
compliance. Senior managers and experienced collectors assist trainers
in teaching the firm’s techniques and procedures for interacting with
debtors, as well as company policies. This training is conducted in five
phases:
Phase 1: Company Policies and Laws and Regulations
New collectors receive training on all federal laws and regulations, as
well as firm security, confidentiality, and file management procedures.
Chapter IV - Page 8
Phase 2: FDCPA, Telephone Techniques, and System
Training
Training in the FDCPA continues, with trainees using a computer-based
training program developed by the American Collectors’ Association
(ACA). Upon completion, each trainee is given a test. Results are
reviewed individually with an instructor and answers are fully explained.
Phase 3: Court Fees & Fines Specific Training
This training will concentrate on understanding the collection of court
fees and fines, focusing on the special characteristics of a debt arising
from, and owing to, a Court. All policies and procedures will be
reinforced to assure that the collectors discuss the debt with the offender
following mandated guidelines. A collection manual has been created,
providing each collector with updated information related to all
receivables the Fees & Fines Division would encounter. Collectors must
comprehend the significant differences between the various debts. The
collection team handling the City’s contract will have additional training
to discuss any specific issues and procedures related to your City’s
portfolio or collection process.
Phase 4: Hands-On Collection Training
Depending on how well the trainee has progressed, the trainer, the
trainee’s manager, and a senior non-management collector will work
with the trainee in rotation to assure that he or she understands and uses
proper collection techniques. Each trainee will be closely monitored to
ensure compliance with Linebarger Goggan standards of operation and
FDCPA, as well as all applicable state and federal laws and regulations.
Phase 5: Mentoring
In the final phase of training, new collectors listen as more experienced
collectors complete numerous collection calls. When they have passed
all exams and are certified, collectors make calls monitored by collection
supervisors, who offer guidance and instruction.
Mentoring and Refresher Courses
Once an employee has passed all initial training sessions and testing, the
training process includes an on-the-job mentoring program. In addition
to the new employee’s immediate supervisor, a senior employee is
assigned to take the new employee “under his wing” to sharpen the
employee’s collection and skip-tracing skills, telephone techniques, and
increase the overall knowledge of the client’s receivables that the new
employee has been assigned to collect. Such mentoring has been
invaluable to the firm in minimizing complaints and improving
performance.
Professional growth and learning never stops at Linebarger Goggan.
Collectors and other employees receive updates on all changes in laws,
regulations, and procedures affecting the collection process.
Chapter IV - Page 9
Refresher training occurs through several means:
•
Staff undergo annual reviews and testing on FDCPA.
•
Collectors and other employees receive updates on changes in
laws, regulations, and procedures affecting collections.
•
Fair treatment of debtors is emphasized throughout all training
phases. The firm monitors phone calls and system actions for
compliance and professionalism to assure that correct procedures
are followed for account documentation.
•
Training sessions are frequently held on systems upgrades.
Interactive group discussions are also held periodically as another tool to
inform collectors and other employees about changes in operating
procedures, laws, or regulations when they are modified or updated.
The firm also distributes memoranda to all employees regarding changes
in the law that may affect the collection process as needed.
Chapter IV - Page 10
EXHIBIT A
Litigation and Grievances Lists
This page intentionally left blank.
LAWSUITS AGAINST LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP
Cause No. C-0331-99-B; The City of McAllen v. Calame Linebarger Graham & Peña, LLP; 93rd Judicial District Court of
Hidalgo County, Texas
This is a companion case to Cause No. C-4693-96-C, previously listed. After that case settled, the City of McAllen, which
was not a client of the firm, sued the firm, claiming that during the period of several months in which the firm ran the
combined School District/City tax office after the tax collector's embezzlements were discovered, the firm failed to properly
credit the City with its share of delinquent tax receipts. The suit was dismissed.
Cause No. 18,717-C; Smith County v. Adams; 241st Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas
This began as a suit filed by the firm on behalf of Smith County, Texas to collect delinquent ad valorem taxes assessed on
mineral royalty interests. The attorney ad litem for defendants served by substituted service filed a third-party complaint
against the firm and about eight unrelated entities which purchased mineral royalty interests at a tax sale conducted by the
firm in a previous Smith County minerals delinquent tax case. The attorney ad litem sought to set aside the judgment and
sale in that prior case through an equitable bill of review. The case was settled to the satisfaction of all parties and
dismissed.
Cause No. 1999-60287; Leslie H. Williams, Jr. and Anna Williams v. Heard, Goggan, Blair & Williams, et al, 61st Judicial
District Court of Harris County, Texas
Leslie H. Williams, Jr. was a former partner in Heard, Goggan, Blair & Williams. When that firm merged with Calame,
Linebarger, Graham & Peña. LLP effective January 1, 1998, Mr. Williams retired rather than be part of the merged firm. The
merged firm agreed to pay Mr. Williams a specified amount of money each month for a specified period of time as
retirement benefits. He and his estranged wife sued over the way in which his retirement was handled. The case settled
favorably to the defendants.
Cause No. 99-12372; George W. Cooper, Jr. v. City of New Orleans and Heard Linebarger Graham Goggan Blair Peña &
Sampson, LLP; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Division "J"
A delinquent taxpayer and owner of real property in the City of New Orleans filed this suit challenging the authority of the
City to employ the firm to collect ad valorem taxes and alleging that the firm engaged in unlawful debt collection practices.
The plaintiff's request for class action certification was denied by the trial court in May 2001 and that ruling was affirmed on
appeal. The Louisiana Supreme Court refused to take the case in May 2001. The case subsequently settled and a joint
motion to dismiss was filed on March 24, 2005.
Cause No. 00-0775-C; B & H Royalty Company v. Smith County, et al; 241st Judicial District Court of Smith County, Texas
The same attorney who filed the third-party action in Cause No. 18,717-C (previously listed) also filed this separate suit
seeking essentially the same relief being sought in that other case. This case was settled and dismissed along with the
other one.
Cause No. 2000-1142; Stephen C. Kuhns, et al v. Banks One Texas, N.A., et al; 207th District Court of Hays County, Texas
This is the subsequent pro se suit involving the same parties and claims as were dismissed under Cause No. 97-0866,
previously listed. This latest suit should be dismissed on grounds of res judicata or collateral estoppel.
Adversary No. 01-5006; Texas Tax Liens, Ltd., Debtor v. Heard Linebarger Graham Goggan Blair Peña & Sampson, LLP;
United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Texas, San Antonio Division
The Debtor in this case is the limited partnership involved in the suit described in Cause No. 98-179392, previously listed. It
made essentially the same allegations as did the investor in that case. The case was dismissed.
Civil Action No. W-01-CA-245; Bobby Simpson v. Dale Linebarger and Linebarger Heard Goggan Blair Graham Peña &
Sampson, LLP; United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Waco Division
The pleadings in this case alleged that a letter send on firm letterhead and signed by Dale Linebarger violated the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act. The letter was sent under our contract with Bell County, Texas, to collect its delinquent court fines
and fees. The plaintiff apparently got a traffic ticket and failed to appear for the hearing as he had agreed to do. In October
2001, the case was dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Cause No. 2001-17023; F.D.M. Strachan v. Etta Morris, Director of Finance, City of New Orleans, and Heard Linebarger
Graham Goggan Blair Peña & Sampson, LLP; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Division "K",
and Cause No. 2002-19735; F.D.M. Strachan III v. Ronald Zeno, director of Finance, City of New Orleans, the City of New
Orleans, United Government Services and Heard Linebarger Graham Goggan Blair Pena & Sampson, LLP
This taxpayer sued to recover a $4,279.90 collection penalty that was paid under protest along with 2001 delinquent ad
valorem taxes. A second suit was filed over the 2002 taxes, seeking a refund of $10,187.36. The cases were settled and a
joint motion to dismiss was filed on February 28, 2005.
Cause No. 2001-20299; David Band, Jr. and Ilonka V. Band v. City of New Orleans and Heard Linebarger Graham Goggan
Blair Peña & Sampson, LLP; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Division "G"
Delinquent taxpayers and owners of real property in the City of New Orleans filed this suit challenging the authority of the
The amount in controversy was $3,483.55. In early 2004, a summary judgment was granted in favor of the City and the
Linebarger firm. The plaintiffs filed an appeal but then withdrew it. The case is closed.
Civil Action No. 02-0452: Denise Washington, Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Andry & Andry, LLC,
Individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and Isabelle Montelepre, Individually and on behalf of others similar
situated v. Heard Linebarger Graham Goggan Blair Peña & Sampson, LLC, United Governmental Services of Louisiana,
Inc., and the City of New Orleans; United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
The plaintiffs in this case raised issues regarding the constitutionality of an ordinance of the City of New Orleans,
deprivation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment, denial of due process in violation of the 5th and 14th
Amendments, and taking of private property without just compensation in violation of the 5th Amendment on behalf of all
taxpayers in Orleans Parish who were required to pay a 30% penalty on their delinquent ad valorem taxes. Plaintiffs sought
to recover unspecified actual and exemplary damages. The trial court dismissed the case on May 15, 2002 for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, and that ruling was affirmed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
on July 11, 2003. The case is closed.
Cause No. 2002-5170; A. Remy Fransen, Jr. and Allain F. Hardin v. City of New Orleans and Heard Linebarger Graham
Goggan Blair Peña & Sampson, LLP; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Division "N"
Delinquent taxpayers and owners of real property in the City of New Orleans filed this suit challenging the authority of the
Recovery of about $5,000 paid under protest was also sought. The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a portion of their
claims and on November 19, 2003, an intermediate Louisiana appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the
case to the trial court for further action. On June 20, 2007, the trial court again dismissed the case, holding that the plaintiffs
had no cause of action against the firm because they were not clients of the firm and the firm had no specific intent to harm
the plaintiffs. On October 3, 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, reversed that ruling and remanded the
case to the trial court. The basis of its decision was a section in the Louisiana Constitution which it interpreted as barring
foreclosure of tax liens by courts. On July 1, 2008 the Louisiana Supreme Court handed down an opinion in which it
affirmed the lower court in part, reversed the lower court in part, and remanded the case to the trial court for further
proceedings.
Cause No. CV-0000531-02; Michael R. Rudolph v. Linebarger Goggan Blair Peña & Sampson; Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, County of Bucks, Magisterial District No. 07-2-02
This was a pro se suit that alleged that the firm caused harm to the Plaintiff's credit by not properly relaying his dispute with
Defense Finance & Accounting, a collection client of the firm, thereby causing him damages in the amount of $2,200. A
take nothing judgment was entered against the Plaintiff on February 11, 2003.
Cause No. SC-0120-1 0060; Frances A. Mahoney v. Heard, Goggan, Blair, Williams and TaxServ LLC Joint Venture;
Philadelphia Municipal Court, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The plaintiff alleged that the joint venture of which the firm is a partner, and which collects taxes owed to the City of
Philadelphia, improperly applied a payment which he made to legal fees, thereby leaving delinquent taxes unpaid. The
claim against Heard, Goggan, Blair & Williams was withdrawn with prejudice on June 16, 2003.
Cause No. 02-09-0645-CVA; Establishment of Religion Devotion Christian Ministries Non Denomination Community of
Jesus Christ, Pastor: Servando Avelar Alvarez, Minister: Thomas Gonzales Votion, Ambassadors: of Jesus Christ, De Jure
Citizen's, of The Kingdom of God, Rev. Robert Gonzales Votion, "et al." v. The County of Atascosa, Texas 78026, Atascosa
County, Judge: Deborah Herber, Atascosa County, Attorney: Thomas Franklin, Atascosa County, Jus. Of The Peace Frank
Leal, Atascosa County, Commissioners, 1, 2, 3, 4, Atascosa County, Chief Appraisal Tommy Watson, Atascosa County,
Appl. Review Board Chairman Melinda Eustace, Atascosa County, Tax-Assr-Collector Barbara Schorsch, Atascosa County,
Pleasanton, Independent School District, Board President, Roger Castillo, Tax Collector, Mureen Burris, Tax Collecting
AGENTS At Law Attorneys, LINEBARGER HEARD GOGGAN BLAIR GRAHAM PENA & SAMPSON LLP "et al"; 81st
Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas
This is the third suit filed by this plaintiff against various public officials arising out of the refusal of the officials to grant
plaintiff a religious tax exemption on property which the plaintiff does not own but on which he operates his church. The two
previous suits, which did not name the firm as a defendant, were dismissed. In April 2003 a final take-nothing judgment was
entered against the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs appealed that dismissal and the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the
firm. The case is closed.
Cause No. 02-CH-21791; Alan Alop v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Williams; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County
Department, Chancery Division
The plaintiff alleged that the firm engaged in the unauthorized practice of law when it sent him a letter on firm letterhead,
signed by an attorney in the firm who was authorized to practice law in Illinois, in which payment of a $100.00 parking ticket
owed to the City of Chicago was demanded. The suit sought confirmation of a class, followed by an injunction against
continued similar actions and damages under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The case was dismissed.
Cause No. DC-02-134; Ruby Ann Gonzalez v. Law Firm of Linebarger Goggan Blair Pena and Thompson [sic], Nancy
Vasquez Perez, and Santiago Barrera, Jr., Sheriff, Duval County, Texas; 229th Judicial District Court, Duval County, Texas
Plaintiff filed suit to enjoin a tax sale posted after the plaintiff's predecessor in title died. A claim for an unspecified amount
of damages was included. On January 11, 2007 the trial court granted the firm's motion for summary judgment and no
appeal was taken. The case is closed.
Cause No. 2002-19311; Belmont Commons, LLC v. The City of New Orleans, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP,
and United Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc.; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana,
Division "U"
This taxpayer sued to recover $276,398.85 paid under protest as delinquent ad valorem taxes, interest and penalty. The
plaintiff also sought a declaratory judgment invalidating a City of New Orleans ordinance and cancellation of the City's tax
collection contract with the law firm. The suit was dismissed in November 2006 on grounds of abandonment.
Cause No. 2003-CI-2920; Gila Corporation, d/b/a Municipal Services Bureau v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP,
f/k/a Linebarger Goggan Blair Peña & Sampson, LLP and Juan M. Peña; 225th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
The matter was resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties.
Cause No. 2003-5507; Frank J. D'Amico v. The City of New Orleans, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, and United
Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc.; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Division "U"
This taxpayer sued to recover at least $22,403.99 paid under protest as delinquent ad valorem taxes, interest, and penalty.
He also sought a declaratory judgment invalidating a City of New Orleans ordinance and cancellation of the City's tax
collection contract with the law firm. The City of New Orleans and the firm were dismissed from the suit.
Cause No. 2003-7130; Carl R. Smith, Dr. Edward M. Campbell and Lake Forest Management, LLC v. The City of New
Orleans, Through the Department of Finance, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, and United Government Services
of Louisiana, Inc.; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Division "G"
This is another suit brought by taxpayers challenging the ordinance adopted by the City of New Orleans to impose a 30%
penalty on delinquent ad valorem taxes. Real property owned by the plaintiffs was sold to pay delinquent taxes. Through
this suit they sought to recover the 30% penalty that they were assessed, together with alleged damages in an unstated
amount, punitive damages, attorney's fees, and costs. The suit terminated favorably for the firm and is closed.
Cause No. 03-10183-278; Lois Marie Cotton, Georgia Johnson as an Involuntary Plaintiff and Her Unknown Heirs and Sie
Frank Johnson aka S.F. Johnson, also an Involuntary Plaintiff and His Unknown Heirs v. Madison County Appraisal District
(Madisonville Independent School District and City of Madisonville), Madison County, John Bankhead, Attorney At Law,
Bobby L. Rich, Jr., and Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson; 278th Judicial District Court, Madison County, Texas
On July 29, 2002 the firm took a default judgment for delinquent ad valorem taxes assessed to Lois Marie Cotton on three
residential lots in Madison, Texas. She filed suit seeking a bill of review to set that judgment aside alleging improprieties in
the way in which that suit was handled. In addition to suing the taxing units she sues the firm, one of its attorneys, Mr. Rich,
and the attorney ad litem who was appointed by the court to represent the unknown heirs of Georgia and S.F. Johnson (but
not Ms. Cotton). The case appears regularly on the court's dismissal docket but is retained. There is no other action in the
case.
Cause No. 2003-CI-11278; J.A. Guajardo a/k/a Joseph A. Guajardo a/k/a Joseph Alfonso Guajardo a//k/a Joe Guajardo v.
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP and Mary Belan Doggett; 288th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
This suit was filed against the firm and one of its former attorneys, Ms. Doggett, on July 25, 2003. Plaintiff sought a
judgment clearing title to three tracts of land he purchased at tax sales conducted by the attorney and the firm, a declaratory
judgment that he was not personally liable for taxes allegedly still owed on that property, sanctions, and attorney's fees. The
trial court granted a summary judgment on behalf of the firm and its partner, and the Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.
On July 22, 2005, the Texas Supreme Court refused to take the plaintiff's request that it hear an appeal. The case is now
closed.
Bankruptcy No. 03-15519, In re Charles R. Gordon, Debtor; Adversary No. 03-761, Charles R. Gordon vs. Travis R. West,
Morris Real Estate Associates, Inc., GMAC, Wachovia Bank, N.A., Linebarger Goggan Blair Pena & Sampson; United
States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Wachovia Bank ,as trustee for bonds issued by the City and School District of Philadelphia that are to be paid out of tax
collections, and the firm, as attorneys responsible for collecting those delinquent taxes, sought to foreclose tax liens on
property owned by the plaintiff. Plaintiff stopped the sale by filing for bankruptcy protection on July 17, 2003. The adversary
proceeding sought a money judgment for $13,545.00 plus interest, costs and attorneys fees, jointly and severally, from all
defendants. The case went to arbitration on November 16, 2005, and the arbitrator’s award was in favor of the firm and
Wachovia Bank and against the plaintiff. The case is now closed.
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-1804; Dallas Wayne Scott v. M. Kent Sims (Illegal Tax Judge) Lucille David, Court Clerk, Linda
Thomas, Appeals Justice, Joseph B. Morris, Appeals Justice, Mark Whittington, Appeals Justice, Jim Jackson
Commissioner's Court, Mike Cantrell Commissioner's Court, John Willey Price, Commissioner's Court, Kenneth A. Mayfield
Commissioner's Court, Original 2000 case Lawyer Randall L. Shepherd, Original 2000 case Lawyer Ashley Carrol, Original
2000 case Lawyer David Berman, Ovard 5th Judge floor Frank Crowley Building, Bill Rhea Judge 16rd [sic] Judicial Court
Judge, Mary Murphy Judge 14th Judicial Court, Quay F. Parker Judge 259th Judicial Court, Jana Prigmore Attorney, Megan
Hare Assistant Attorney, Peter G. Smith, Melissa M. Morales, C. David Filder, Shelia Fuqua Carter, Linebarger, Goggan,
Blair, Pena, Simpson [sic],Edward Lopez, Jr., Pamela Pope Johnson, Pam Gidney Tax Richardson, Alicia Stephenson Tax
R.I.S.D., David Childs Tax County of Dallas; United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division
Civil Action No. 3:03-CV-1804
Dallas Wayne Scott filed this pro se suit on August 12, 2003, against the Judge of the Dallas County District Tax Court, a
clerk of that court, three Justices on the Dallas Court of Appeals, four Dallas County Commissioners, four judges of the
Dallas County state District Courts, at least twelve attorneys, and three tax collectors. Eight attorneys in the firm were
named as defendants, including all named partners in the firm. The plaintiff sought $69 million in damages for deprivation of
his civil rights arising out of suits filed against him in state court seeking payment of delinquent ad valorem taxes. On
September 29, 2004, the United States Magistrate Judge recommended that the suit be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in
the federal court and recommended that the Plaintiff be sanctioned $1,000, with the requirement that he pay that amount
before being allowed to file any new suits. The United States District Judge accepted that recommendation and entered a
judgment accordingly. No appeal was taken. The case is closed.
Cause No. 03-1711; Craig F. Young v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; 207th Judicial District Court of Hays
County, Texas
Craig Young was an associate attorney of the firm who left to go into practice with his father. Young & Young later merged
into Linebarger Goggan. A dispute arose between Craig Young and the firm over a provision in the merger agreement
relating to payment of a percentage of fees received from former clients of Young & Young. The suit was settled and
dismissed in April 2004.
Civil Action No. 03-CV-6577; Francis Russo v. Steven Glass, et al; United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania
This was a pro se suit filed against numerous officials of the City of Philadelphia and others, including Firm partner Sharon
Humble. The complaint alleged various irregularities involving a sheriff's sale of real property because of delinquent ad
valorem taxes in 2002. On February 11, 2005, the court dismissed Ms. Humble as a defendant.
Cause No. GN 401,285; Nicolas J. Rodriguez, Individually v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP (f/k/a Linebarger
Goggan Blair Peña & Sampson, LLP), Juan M. Peña , Magallanes & Hinojosa, PC (f/k/a Magallanes, Hinojosa & Trevino,
PC), Juan A. Magallanes, Gilberto Hinojosa, Eddie Treviño, Preston E. Henrichson, Law Offices of Preston E. Henrichson,
A Professional Corporation, Burton, McCumber & Cortez, LLP, and Joe Cortez, CPA; 250th Judicial District Court of Travis
County, Texas, filed April 23, 2004
Nicolas J. Rodriguez was employed by the firm after a trucking business which he operated out of Brownsville, Texas failed.
Believing that that failure was the result of actions of others he sought counsel to file suit against those persons. We believe
he asked now former firm partner Juan Peña for assistance in obtaining counsel for that purpose. Plaintiff alleged that he
"retained Peña" to advise him regarding that claim, that "Peña agreed to represent" him, and that he and Peña "never
agreed to a fee for said for said representation and never signed a written fee agreement." Plaintiff also alleged that other
attorneys outside the firm also represented him and advised him to settle his suit for more than $2,560,000, which he did.
Plaintiff sued the firm, Peña, and all the other attorneys and accountants who advised him in his other suit, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act. No
amount of damages was alleged. The firm never represented Plaintiff because of its restrictions on the area of law in which
it practices. On April 6, 2005, all of the plaintiff's claims against Peña and the firm were dismissed with prejudice. Other
orders dismissed the plaintiff's claims against all other defendants. The plaintiff failed to perfect an appeal within the
allowed time and the dismissal of the case is now final.
Cause No. 2004-27229; Lupe Villarreal v. CGI Financial, Inc., Harris County, Texas, Houston Independent School District,
City of Houston, Paul Bettencourt, Tax-Assessor Collector for Harris County, Texas and Linebarger Goggan Blair &
Sampson, LLP; 281st Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
In 2001 the law firm filed a delinquent tax suit against the Plaintiff on behalf of Harris County, Houston ISD, and the City of
Houston. Plaintiff alleged she sought and obtained a commitment from CGI Financial, Inc. to loan her sufficient funds with
which to pay the taxes, but CGI Financial failed to pay everything that was owed to the City, County and School District.
Because of that breach of contract Plaintiff alleged that her property was sold at a tax sale conducted by the law firm in
August 2002. Plaintiff alleged that the law firm failed to defer or cancel that tax sale even though CGI tendered a payment
that was $829.00 less than what was owed at the time. Plaintiff sought an unstated amount of damages from all defendants
plus attorney's fees and costs. The case was dismissed for want of jurisdiction and the Plaintiff appealed. On December 22,
2006, the Houston First Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the district court. The Plaintiff then refiled the suit in a County
Civil Court at Law in Harris County.
Cause No. GN 402673; Greg Thomas, Individually and as Independent Executor of the Estate of Marvin Thomas, Deceased
and Estate of Marvin Thomas, Deceased vs. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; 53rd Judicial District Court, Travis
County, Texas
This case was filed on August 18, 2004, by the son of a Dallas attorney, Marvin Thomas, who began in 1983 to provide
personal services for the benefit of Heard, Goggan & Blair incident to obtaining and performing under a delinquent tax
collection contract between that firm and Dallas County, Texas. Marvin Thomas assigned the fees he was receiving to this
son, Greg, who was not providing any services under that personal services agreement. Marvin Thomas died in December
2002. The Linebarger Goggan firm ceased making payments under the personal services agreement following Marvin
Thomas's death. His son alleged that the agreement survived his father's death and he sought recovery of fees which he
believed were owed to him or to his father's estate. The case was settled to the satisfaction of all parties.
Cause No. 04-CV-1119; Alonzo Highsmith and Ajordi, Inc. v. Ron F Plackemeier, Lyons & Plackemeier, P.C., and
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; 405th Judicial District Court, Galveston County, Texas
Effective July 1, 2004, the Firm entered into an agreement of merger with Lyons & Plackemeier, with the Firm being the
surviving entity. On October 4, 2004 this suit was filed by a former client of Lyons & Plackemeier. It alleged that Ron
Plackemeier and Lyons & Plackemeier failed to take certain steps to prevent the seizure and sale of the plaintiff's property
in satisfaction of a judgment taken against the plaintiff in 2003. The other parties settled all claims in the case, including
those involving the Firm, and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
Cause No. 04 MI 624180; Isaiah Israel v. City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, and Linebarger Goggan Blair &
Sampson, LLP; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Municipal Department, First District
This pro se suit was filed by a Chicago resident whose vehicle was impounded by the City of Chicago in March 2004
because of unpaid parking tickets. The City settled with the Plaintiff for itself and the law firm. The case was dismissed with
prejudice.
Civil Action No. 2:04-CV-04644-JF; Peter M. Ash v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia and Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
This was a pro se suit brought on October 10, 2004, by the owner of property that was condemned by the City of
Philadelphia's Redevelopment Authority pursuant to the Pennsylvania Redevelopment Law. The law firm had no
involvement with that condemnation, but was added as a defendant because there were also delinquent taxes on the
property which the law firm took steps to collect. On October 19, 2004, the federal judge dismissed the case on his own
motion. On August 1, 2005, the United Stated Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case. It is now
closed.
Civil Action No. 05-CV-60185; Tariku H. Keira v. Anna Cabral, Treasurer of the United Stats, Charles A. Wilson, Department
of the Treasury, Department of the Treasury, Kay Cole James, United States Office of Personnel Management, John E.
Potter, United States Postmaster General, Allied Interstate Collection Agency, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson and
Diversified Collection Services, Inc.; United States District Court, Southern District of Florida
In this pro se suit the Plaintiff complained about having disability retirement benefits from the United States Postal Service
seized to pay a debt owing to some undefined federal agency. The firm's involvement was to send the Plaintiff two demand
letters. When he replied with allegations that the claim was unjust the firm took no further action other than to return the
claim to the agency which had forwarded it. On September 29, 2005, the case was dismissed with prejudice. There was no
appeal.
Cause No. 2005-19726; Capps Rent-A-Car Inc. vs. Harris County, Texas, Harris County Toll Road Authority and Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; 164th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
This case was filed March 22, 2005, by a company engaged in the business of leasing motor vehicles to individuals,
business entities, and governmental agencies in the metropolitan Houston area. Some of those leased vehicles operate on
roadways subject to the jurisdiction of the Harris County Toll Road Authority, and some of the operators fail to pay the
applicable tolls. When the tolls are not paid the firm, under contract with HCTRA, sent the plaintiff, as registered owner of
the vehicle, a demand for payment of the toll and fees for collecting the toll. Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that it
was not liable for the tolls and fees assessed on leased vehicles which fail to pay the applicable tolls to HCTRA. Plaintiff
also sought an injunction against future attempts by the defendants to collect unpaid tolls and fees on leased vehicles from
it. The case was dismissed.
Case No. 835775; Barbara A. Tarver vs. Nanik S. Bhagia, N K Resources, Inc., Interstate Investment Corp., and Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; Civil County Court at Law #2, Harris County, Texas
In this case, which was filed on April 11, 2005, the plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that Mr. Bhagia, or his two whollyowned companies, agreed to pay the delinquent ad valorem taxes on a residence she owned in Houston in return for her
conveyance of that property to N K Resources, Inc. The plaintiff alleged that he failed to make those tax payments, and that
the firm failed to sell the property at a tax sale. The relief sought against the firm was the immediate posting of a foreclosure
of the property and the crediting of the sales proceeds against the taxes assessed to the plaintiff. Plaintiff also sought
recovery of her attorney's fees. The other parties settled the case shortly before it was scheduled for trial on October 5,
2005 and the case was dismissed.
Case No. 048-210834-05; Perdue, Brackett, Flores, Utt & Burns, A Joint Venture vs. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair, Sampson &
Meeks, LLP and Bryan Eppstein & Co.; 48th Judicial District court, Tarrant County, Texas
Effective January 1, 2002, the Plaintiff law firm contracted with the City of Fort Worth to collect the city's delinquent ad
valorem taxes for a period of three (3) years, ending December 31, 2004. That contract gave the City the option of
extending it for two separate one-year extensions for calendar years 2005 and 2006. This suit was filed in April 2005 and
alleged that beginning in late 2004 the firm began to contact representatives of the City in an effort to prevent the City from
exercising the renewal options. Those contacts are alleged to have been defamatory of the Plaintiff, to have tortuously
interfered with the Plaintiff's contract with the City, to have tortuously interfered with a prospective business relationship, to
have disparaged the Plaintiff, and to have been the product of a conspiracy between the Defendants. On November 5,
2007 the trial court signed a summary judgment in favor of the firm, denying all relief sought by the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
appealed that ruling and on May 7, 2009 the Second Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
No. 001065; Stefany Jones v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP; Court of Common
Pleas, Philadelphia County, Trial Division
The plaintiff in this case alleged that she purchased a tract of real property at a tax sale in June 2003. She also alleged that
the same tract had been sold to another person in November 2002 through a drug forfeiture, with that deed recorded in April
2003. She then alleged that this other purchaser obtained a court order in January 2004 that set aside the Sheriff's Sale
through which the plaintiff believed she had acquired the property. Based on those allegations she claimed that Wachovia
Bank and the firm failed to perform due diligence regarding the title to the property and negligently misrepresented the
sufficiency of the title that the Plaintiff received through the Sheriff's Sale. Plaintiff sought recovery of damages in excess of
$50,000. On May 30, 2006, the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her suit with prejudice.
Cause No. B-175064; Camella O'Brien vs. J.M. Griffiths, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Dale Linebarger,
Thomas S. Goggan, III, Stephen S. Blair, Jim Blair; Russell R. Graham, DeMetris A. Sampson and William E. King; 60th
Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
This suit was filed May 23, 2005, as a purported class action on behalf of all present and former taxpayers who have been
charged or paid an abstract or title search fee which the Plaintiff characterizes as without legal authority, wrongful,
fraudulent, illegal, deceptive, deceitful, not allowed by the Texas Tax Code, in excess of payments permitted by law, not
incurred by a taxing unit to which delinquent taxes are owed, bogus, and the result of a civil conspiracy. Even though the
Plaintiff has not ever paid any of the fees that form the basis of the suit, she seeks actual and exemplary damages in an
unstated amount, along with pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief against future collection of these fees. The
firm has denied those allegations and the case remains pending.
No. 05-4064; Oscar Magee and George Magee v. City of New Orleans, Linebarger, Graham, Goggan, Blair & Sampson,
LLC and John Davidson, d/b/a Rio Lindo, Inc.; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Division "G".
Plaintiffs alleged that they purchased two properties at a November 2001 city tax sale conducted by the law firm but due to
errors and inefficiency on the part of the firm the tax deeds were not recorded until December 2003. They further alleged
that Rio Lindo, Inc. purchased the same properties from the former owner in April 2004 and then filed suit against the
Magees to redeem the property. They then alleged that if the firm had been diligent in preparing the tax deeds those deeds
would have been recorded sooner and the redemptive period would have passed before Rio Lindo, Inc. had an opportunity
to acquire the properties. The firm was sued for negligence and an unstated amount of damages. The case was dismissed
on Plaintiffs' motion on June 16, 2005.
Civil Action No. 05-3719; Jereal C. McCarthy, Reginald V. Martinez, III, Carl R. Smith, Edward M. Campbell and Lake
Forest Management, LLC, and Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP and XYZ
Insurance Company, United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana
This suit was filed on August 8, 2005 as a purported class action. It sought recovery of $28 million allegedly received by the
firm as "attorney's fees disguised as collection penalties paid to them through the City of New Orleans . . . for little or no
work on the part of Heard Linebarger." On September 18, 2006 the case was dismissed for want of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Civil Action No. 05-2141; Kenneth A. McCready vs. Daniel Becker, Pamela Becker, and SCAT Corp., a Texas Corporation
d/b/a Business Office Systems& Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Business Office Systems & Solutions, also d/b/a “BOSS,” and d/b/a
Mapnad Viatel Cons., Experian Information Solutions, Inc., an Ohio Corporation; Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP,
a Texas Limited Liability Partnership, and the City of Chicago, Illinois, an Illinois Municipal Corporation; United States
District Court, Central District of Illinois, Urbana Division
The firm was added as a defendant in this case on October 27, 2005. The City of Chicago had registered an administrative
judgment against the plaintiff for $5,710.00 for unpaid traffic and parking violations. Incident to collecting that judgment on
behalf of the City the firm obtained one or more copies of a credit report on the Plaintiff. In this pro se suit the Plaintiff
alleged that the firm and the City violated the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act when they obtained his credit report. On
December 21, 2005 the Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the firm and the City of Chicago from this case.
Civil Action No. 2:06-C-04884; Kenneth A. McCready v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, a Texas Limited Liability
Partnership, and the City of Chicago, Illinois, an Illinois Municipal Corporation; United States District Court, Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division
This suit makes the same claims as were made in the one described above, but was filed by a firm of attorneys who
specialize in consumer law. The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on February 5, 2008.
Civil Action No. 05-2506; Albert B. Crane, Jr. v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP and Wachovia Bank; United
States District Court for the District of Pennsylvania
This suit was filed on May 26, 2005, but was not served on any defendant until March 29, 2006. The suit alleged that the
firm conducted a tax sale which deprived the Plaintiff of a $6,000.00 mortgage lien on the delinquent property. Plaintiff
sought damages of at least $250,000.00. The sale at issue in this case is the same sale that the Plaintiff previously
challenged unsuccessfully in a Pennsylvania state court. The plaintiff's attorney dismissed the case on May 22, 2006.
Cause No. 06L3; Robert Pfluger v. Linebarger Goggan Blair Sampson [sic], LLP Attorneys at Law, Scott D Wylie Attorney At
Law; Circuit Court of Illinois, Winnebago County
This pro se suit was filed January 3, 2006. It alleged that on December 1, 2005, the firm sent a letter to the Plaintiff in which
it stated that a judgment had been taken against the Plaintiff for unpaid Illinois income taxes. The suit further alleged that
on December 13, 2005, the firm sent a second letter in which it stated that the previous letter was sent by mistake because
no judgment had been taken against the Plaintiff. The firm apologized for its error. In his suit the Plaintiff charged the firm
with “fraud, attempted fraud, using the color of law to deny Plaintiff of his civil rights,” and sought punitive damages of two
million dollars, but no actual damages. The suit was dismissed with prejudice on March 2, 2006.
Cause No. 2006-CI-3630; Robert Wightman-Cervantes vs. Bridget Annette Moreno and Linebarger, Goggan, Blair and
Sampson, LLP; 285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas
This pro se suit alleged that the firm, through its attorney Bridget Moreno, sent the Plaintiff a letter demanding $221.00 for a
fine and fees allegedly owed to a Justice of the Peace in Dallas County, Texas. The Plaintiff alleged that the firm refused to
provide him with evidence of the alleged fine. He claimed that "Dallas County was placing bogus claims with the law firm"
and so the defendants are guilty of common law unlawful debt collection and the "intentional tort of extortion." The case
was settled to the satisfaction of all parties and was dismissed.
Cause No. 06C-2346; Louis Parker v. Linebarger, Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, A Texas Limited Liability Partnership;
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
This suit was filed as a purported class action on April 26, 2006. The plaintiff alleged that the firm sent him a second letter
seeking payment of $912.00 which he allegedly owed Provident Hospital in Chicago for medical services after his attorneys
had written the firm and informed it the plaintiff was represented by counsel and requested that no more letters be sent to
him. The suit alleged violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was settled and dismissed.
Cause No. 2006-14382; Houston Independent School District v. Michael Francis Palma v. Jim Robinson, Harris County
Appraisal District, Kent M. Rider and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; 61st Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas.
This started out as a delinquent tax suit which the firm filed against Mr. Palma. The defendant filed a pro se answer and
third-party action in which he alleged the firm was attempting to collect unlawful debts, sending fraudulent tax notices
through the U.S. mail, and attempting to fraudulently obtain money from a financial institution, all in violation of several
federal statutes. Those claims are meritless. The "unlawful debts" apply to gambling losses and loan-sharking, and there is
no civil cause of action available for the other two claims. On July 26, 2006, the Defendant paid the taxes assessed for
2003 through 2005. On May 14, 2007, the Tax Master to whom the case was referred recommended that judgment be
entered in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appealed that ruling to the district court where it was tried to a jury in
September 2007. The jury verdict was favorable to the School District and a judgment has been entered. Mr. Palma is
attempting to appeal.
Cause No. 064-00732; Nicholas Howlett v. Seawest Financial Corp., d/b/a Seawest Acceptance, Inc., Christine T. Robbins,
d/b/a Robbins Auto Sales, Earl Welch, Harvest Credit Management, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Consumer
Portfolio Services, Inc., Experian North America, Inc., d/b/a Experian, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Experian
Marketing Solutions, Inc. and Experian Services Corp.; Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, 22nd Judicial District
This suit was filed on April 20, 2006. The case arose out of the plaintiff's purchase of a used car from Robbins Auto Sales
in St. Louis, Missouri, which was financed by Seawest Financial Corporation, a California corporation. After Robbins was
unable to provide Howlett with a title to the car, he sued Robbins and Seawest. That case was settled with Seawest paying
Howlett $10,673.11 and releasing him from the purchase contract. In return, Howlett assigned his causes of action against
Robbins and its representatives and delivered the car to Seawest. In this second suit, Howlett sued everyone who was
involved in the original purchase and added entities, some of which apparently acquired his former debt from Seawest and
others which continue to show the Seawest contract as an unpaid debt on his credit report. The firm was named as a
defendant because it sent him a collection letter on January 7, 2006, on behalf of Harvest Credit Management seeking
recovery of $8,051.70. A settlement was reached with the plaintiff in July 2006 and the firm was dismissed with prejudice
from the case.
Cause No. 2006-1669; Brookewood Investments Co., L.L.C. v. Sixty-Three Twenty-Four Chef Menteur Highway L.L.C. and
Jacob V. Morreale; Sixty-Three Twenty-Four Chef Menteur Highway L.L.C. and Jacob V. Morreale v. City of New Orleans
and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans, State of Louisiana, Division "N"
On May 2, 2006, the firm was served with a Third Party Demand filed on behalf of the defendants in this case. The
defendants alleged that the tax sale at which the plaintiff acquired the real property in question was a nullity for various
reasons. In the third-party action against the firm and the City of New Orleans, the defendants alleged that the Municipal
Ordinance adopted by the New Orleans City Council in 1998, which permitted the addition of penalties to delinquent ad
valorem taxes owed to the City, was unconstitutional. Defendants also alleged that the amount collected by the firm out of
the tax sale of this property was an excessive attorney's fee. Plaintiff's claim against the firm was dismissed in late 2006 by
the court and that ruling was affirmed on appeal. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's request that it hear the
case and it has ended.
Case No. 003072; Zion Church of God In Christ and B.M. Oakley Devel. Corp. v. City of Philadelphia and Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Trial Division
This suit was filed April 24, 2006 as a "Complaint in Equity". According to the allegations, the Church owned the property,
although the evidence of that ownership attached to the complaint stated that the grantee was the B.M. Oakely Economic
Development Corporation. The suit also alleged that the Church received a tax exemption for the IRS, but there was no
allegation that the Church ever applied for an exemption for ad valorem taxation after the Development Corporation
acquired the property in 1994. The relief sought was a nunc pro tunc declaration that the taxes assessed since 1994 were
not owed and an injunction to stop all collection efforts, including tax sales, because of the Church's alleged tax exemption.
The firm filed an answer and the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew the suit on May 12, 2006.
Civil Action No. 06-CV-5077; David Ehrich v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court,
Eastern District of New York
This suit was filed on September 30, 2006 and alleged that the firm had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The
specific violations alleged were (1) failing to provide verification of the debt after Mr. Ehrich disputed it, (2) depriving Mr.
Ehrich of the right to orally dispute the alleged debt, and (3) using the facsimile signature of an attorney on the collection
letter. On the same day the suit was filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal of the suit was filed because the matter had been
settled.
Civil Action No. 06-6658; Kathleen Ramirez v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York
This suit was filed on December 18, 2006, as a purported class action alleging a violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act. The suit was based on a single letter dated August 4, 2006, which the plaintiff alleged violated the Act by
denying her the right to orally dispute the alleged debt. On February 23, 2007, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary
Dismissal, after which the Court closed the file.
Civil Action No. 06-11408; Sixty-Three Twenty-Four Chef Menteur Highway, L.L.C. v. City of New Orleans and Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court, Eastern District of Louisiana, New Orleans Division
This suit was filed on December 29, 2006, by the same attorney on behalf of the same client who attempted to sue the firm
in Cause No. 2006-1669, previously listed. The factual allegations were essentially the same, but several new causes of
action based on both federal and state law were based on those same facts. The plaintiff moved to dismiss the suit and that
motion was granted on March 29, 2007.
Cause No. 884,634; Lupe Villarreal v. Harris County, Texas, Houston Independent School District, City of Houston, and
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; County Civil Courts at Law of Harris County, Texas
This is the same case described in Cause No. 2004-27229, previously listed, after being refiled in the proper court following
the dismissal of that suit for want of subject matter jurisdiction in the Harris County district courts. The case was settled and
dismissed.
Cause No. 07-CV-36; Capital One, FSB v. Mona Long, et al v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP and Jacques A.
Machol, III, Individually; District Court, Pitkin County, Colorado
The firm initially filed suit on behalf of its client Capital One, FSB, seeking to collect an amount owed on a credit card. The
defendants filed a cross-action against the firm and one of its partners, alleging that we failed to provide information
requested by the defendants under the Colorado Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that we had violated the
Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay provision. Defendants sought an undisclosed amount of actual damages as well as
statutory damages and attorney's fees. On November 28, 2007 the court granted the firm's motion for summary judgment
and denied all relief requested by Ms. Long, who has filed an appeal. The intermediate appellate court affirmed some
rulings of the trial court and remanded other issues for reconsideration.
Cause No. CV-333-07; William Schweitzer, Jr. v. Linebarger Goggan; Magisterial District Court 05-2-06, County of
Allegheny, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, office was assigned a case against the plaintiff by the Pennsylvania Attorney General. The
firm worked the case until the Attorney General agreed to close it because of a dispute over Schweitzer's liability. This suit
was filed on April 12, 2007. In it Schweitzer sought recovery of $750.00 based on Section 552 of the Restatement of Torts
2d for alleged misrepresentation of information and negligent supply of false information. The case was settled to the
satisfaction of all parties.
Cause No. 2007-25798; Harris County, on behalf of itself and the following county-wide taxing authorities, the Harris County
Education Department, the Port of Houston Authority of Harris County, the Harris County Flood Control District, the Harris
County Hospital District, and City of Houston, Houston Independent School District, and Houston Community College
System v. Jose De La Cruz Iraheta, Margarita Iraheta, Chase Mortgage Company, Mortgage Electronic Registration
Systems, Inc.; Jose De La Cruz Iraheta v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Harris County, City of Houston,
Houston Independent School District and Houston Community College System; 125th Judicial District Court of Harris
County, Texas
This began as a suit filed by the firm seeking to collect delinquent ad valorem taxes assessed on a residence in Houston.
The defendant filed an answer along with a counterclaim against the taxing jurisdictions and a third-party claim against the
law firm. In his pleadings as a third-party plaintiff, Mr. Iraheta alleges that the firm violated the Servicemembers' Civil Relief
Act, 50 U.S.C. App. §501(d), the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §1983, the Federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations
Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. §1961, wrongfully filed a frivolous suit, and committed several; acts of negligence. Some of the
same claims are made against the taxing units for which the tax collection suit was filed. The tax suit was voluntarily
dismissed upon learning of the military deferment. The claims against the firm are being defended.
Case No. 1642; Fidelity National Title Insurance Company v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Trial Division
In April 2005 the firm conducted a sheriff's sale of residential property pursuant to a suit filed to recover delinquent taxes. In
early June 2005 the former owners and delinquent taxpayers, the Colburns, allegedly conveyed the property to another
person. That deed was recorded in June. In mid-July the sheriff's deed to the purchaser at the tax sale was recorded after
the purchaser paid the balance of the purchase price. Later in July an agent of Fidelity Title called the firm's Philadelphia
office and asked for the amount needed to pay those taxes incident to a pending sale of the property from the grantee of the
Colburns to new parties. Fidelity Title tendered the required amount of taxes and closed the sale. That deed was recorded
in mid-August 2005. The sheriff's deed was then discovered by those last purchasers, who made demand on Fidelity Title to
reimburse the purchase price under Fidelity's policy of title insurance. Fidelity Title complied and sued the firm seeking to
recover approximately $50,000 remaining out of that payment on a theory of negligent misrepresentation because the firm
mistakenly reported that taxes were delinquent even though the property had been sold in satisfaction of the delinquent
taxes. The case was settled and dismissed.
Case No. 3:07-CV-00745-RNC; Krista Wise v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP and Jacques A. Machol, III; United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut
This case was filed May 11, 2007, against the firm and partner Jacques A. Machol, III. The complaint made general
allegations of violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Connecticut Creditors' Collection Practices
Act or the Connecticut Consumer Collection Agency Act. The suit was dismissed June 12, 2007 pursuant to a settlement.
Civil Action No. EP-07-CA-175; Humberto Diaz v. Javier Alverez; Carmen I. Perez; Edward Hernandez; Richard Porras;
Jose Padilla; Edie Rubalcaba; Linebarger Heard Goggan Blair Graham Pena & Sampson, LLP; Sam M. Paxon; H.E.
Cooper; Commonwealth Land Title Company of El Paso; Eduardo N. Lerma; Juan F. Sandoval; John Updegraff; Ronald R.
Rush; Hughes Butterworth; Tedd F. Richardson; Juan Pina; Shirley R. Batts; Whitco Oil; Mr. & Mrs. Alejandro Cabrera;
Mays Petroleum; Karam Properties; Victor Perez; First National Bank; Mr. & Mrs. Gilberto Soto; Jose Juarez; Kathleen C.
Anderson; Robyn Brambiett; Oscar G. Gabaldon, Jr.; Ricardo Herrera; Jaime Esparza; Alejandro (Alex) Gonzales; Delores
Birones; Victor A. Flores; Norma L. Favela; Antonin Scalia; Carolyn Dineen King; Harry Lee Hudspeth; Lucius Desha
Bunton, III;Anthony M. Kennedy; R. Lanier Anderson, III; Roger Vinson; Rick Perry; David Dewhurst; Janet Reno; John
Ashcroft; Alberto Gonzalez; Harold E. Brown, Jr.; John Sharp; El Collins;Paula Ruiz; Chase Manhattan Bank, Yale T.
Freeman; Tamisha Parks; JPMorgan Chase; W. F. Daran, Inc.; United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, El Paso Division
On October 7, 1999, the firm took a judgment against Mr. Diaz for delinquent taxes on property he owned in El Paso. The
judgment was signed by Javier Alverez as judge of the County Court at Law No. 4 of El Paso County. The property was
subsequently sold. On May 23, 2007 Mr. Diaz filed this suit against not only that judge but three present or former attorneys
of the firm, the firm, several state court officials, the Governor and Lieutenant Governor of Texas, two sitting Justices on the
United States Supreme Court, two United States District Judges in El Paso, two former Attorney Generals of the United
States and the current Attorney General, and numerous other private individuals and corporations. The pro se complaint
attempted to allege causes of action for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (civil RICO),
various federal and Texas criminal statutes, various Texas civil statutes, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, violation of oath of office, and constructive trust. On April 25, 2008 the court granted the motion to dismiss filed on
behalf of the firm and the members of the firm who were named as defendants. The same day the court dismissed the suit
as to all defendants.
Cause No. 2371; Prayer & Faith Temple Church of God in Christ v. Charles E. Thomas, City of Philadelphia, Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP and Jason Lerner; Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania
This was a quiet title action initiated by the Church. The complaint alleged that no property taxes were owed on its property
because it was a religious organization and not subject to taxes." There were delinquent taxes on the property from 1987
through 2007. The only relief requested from the firm was an injunction from asserting any right, title or interest in the
property inconsistent with the interest of the Church. The only interest the firm had was its attorney's fees pursuant to its
contract with the City of Philadelphia. On November 6, 2007 the firm was dismissed from the suit with prejudice to the
Church's claims.
Case No. 1:07-CV-1206-MSK; Sean Kerns v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court,
District of Colorado
The complaint alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and common law invasion of the right to privacy
based on a December 6, 2006, letter which alleged that a judgment had been entered in a suit in state court against Kerns.
The operative fact alleged was that the statement that a judgment had been taken was false. The case was settled and was
dismissed.
Case No. BC372932; Abel Franquez and Silvia Franquez v. Chase Manhattan Bank, USA, N.A., a Corporation, HSBC Bank
Nevada aka HSBC Retail Services, a business entity of unknown form, Creditmax, LLC, a Limited Liability Company,
Harvest Credit Management VII, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, Linebarger, Goggan, Blair & Sampson, LLP, a Limited
Liability Partnership, and Does 1-75, Inclusive; Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles
This suit was filed June 18, 2007. It alleged that the defendants violated the California Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act and reported false derogatory information about the plaintiffs. It also alleged that the firm engaged in the
unauthorized practice of law by sending a letter to the plaintiffs in California from the firm's Denver office. Although solid
grounds for defending the suit existed, a settlement was negotiated and the case was dismissed.
Civil Action No. 07-3752; Marie Johnson and Eugene Lamothe v. City of New Orleans; Linebarger Goggan Blair &
Sampson, LLP; and John/Jane Does 1-5; United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
This case was filed July 17, 2007. It alleged that one tract of real property belonging to each plaintiff was improperly sold to
pay delinquent ad valorem taxes, which had been assessed on each tract. Actual damages claimed totaled about $12,750
plus attorney's fees. A settlement of the case was negotiated and the case was dismissed with prejudice.
American Arbitration Association Case No. 70 148 475 07; Odon Peña v. Capital One Bank and Linebarger Goggan Blair &
Sampson, LLP
On July 25, 2007 Odon Peña filed a Demand for Arbitration in what was pending as Case No. E07-389 on the docket of the
Justice Court, Precinct 4, Place 1, Hidalgo County, Texas. The firm had filed that suit on behalf of Capital One Bank
seeking to collect $1,271.24 on a credit card issued by the Bank to Mr. Peña. The cardholder agreement contains an
arbitration clause which Mr. Peña invoked. Once he did so the suit against him was dismissed and all action proceeded in
the arbitration case, in which he alleged that the firm had libeled him and had violated several Texas Finance code
provisions regulating debt collecting. The firm answered the claim and participated in an arbitration session held on March
18, 2008. On April 29, 2008 the arbitrator ruled in favor of both Capital One Bank and the Firm, by awarding Mr. Peña no
recovery from either one. After Mr. Peña appealed to a three-member arbitration panel the claim was settled and
dismissed.
American Arbitration Association Case No. 70 148 476 07; Juan F. Rodriguez v. Capital One Bank and Linebarger Goggan
Blair & Sampson, LLP
On July 25, 2007 Juan F. Rodriguez filed a Demand for Arbitration in what was pending as Case No. E07-383 on the docket
of the Justice Court, Precinct 4, Place 1, Hidalgo County, Texas. The firm had filed that suit on behalf of Capital One Bank
seeking to collect $4,640.69 on a credit card issued by the Bank to Mr. Rodriguez. The cardholder agreement contains an
arbitration clause which Mr. Rodriguez invoked. Once he did so the suit against him was dismissed and all action
proceeded in the arbitration case, in which he alleged that the firm had libeled him and had violated several Texas Finance
code provisions regulating debt collecting. The case was settled.
Cause No. B179,762; Pete Gotcher and All Others Similarly Situated in the United States v. Linebarger Goggan Blair &
Sampson, LLP, Dale Linebarger, Thomas S. Goggan, III, Stephen S. Blair, Jim Blair, Russell R. Graham, DeMetris
Sampson and William E. King; 60th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas
This suit was filed August 7, 2007, by the same attorneys who filed Cause No. B-175064, listed previously. The case is
based essentially on the same allegations as those in that case. The case is being defended.
Cause No. 2007-57901; Deran Zdan v. Harris County Tax Assessor-Collector; 164th Judicial District Court, Harris County,
Texas
This case was filed pro se on September 7, 2007. Plaintiff alleges that he notified the Tax Collector that his 2007 taxes
"would be adjusted by the amount overpaid in 2006 (the valuation of the above-described property had been decreased
through a lawsuit against the Harris County Appraisal District)." He then alleges that he learned that the Tax Office did not
do as he thought it would, resulting in its inclusion of "late fees" on his 2007 tax bill. That action was allegedly a mistake by
the Tax Office, and so he seeks correcting of the tax rolls to show that his 2007 taxes were paid on time and cancellation of
the "late fees." Although the firm is named in the style of the case, it is not mentioned in the pleading, or in any of the
exhibits attached to it, or in the prayer for relief. The firm has filed an answer.
Cause No. 2007-61866; Mike Valentine, and All Others Similarly Situated in the United States v. Linebarger, Goggan, Blair
& Sampson, LLP. Dale Linebarger; Thomas S. Goggan, III; Stephen S. Blair; Jim Blair; Russell R. Graham; DeMetris A.
Sampson,; William E. King; and Public Records Company, LLP; 269th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
This suit was filed on October 5, 2007. It essentially regurgitated the allegations made in Cause Nos. B-175064 and B179762, previously listed. On February 12, 2008 the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Non-Suit.
Cause No. 2007-CV-2180; James T. Schwantes v. Jacques A. Machol, Jr., and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP;
District Court, 18th Judicial District of Arapahoe County, Colorado
This pro se suit was filed October 22, 2007, against the firm and one of its partners. The plaintiff alleged violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was dismissed on November 2, 2007, based upon a settlement agreement
between the parties.
Cause No. D-1-GN-07-003506; Jennifer H. Masar v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP and Travelers Casualty and
Surety Company of America; 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas
This case was filed October 12, 2007, and alleged that the firm violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
violated the Texas debt collection statute, committed unfair debt collection practices at common law, violated the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, acted fraudulently, made intentional misrepresentations, and acted negligently, all incident
to a suit it filed on behalf of North Star Capital Acquisitions, LLC against Ms. Masar seeking to collect a $1,287.90 consumer
debt. The case was settled to the satisfaction of all parties and dismissed.
Civil Action No. 1:07-mc-00006; Boris Twain Clewis v. Scott K. Boates, Hon. Rory R. Olsen, Judge, James M. Filer, Sr.,
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Peter T. Steinman, and J.W. Don Johnson; United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division
This was a pro se suit filed by a inmate in a Texas prison. The firm appears to have been named as a defendant because it
appeared in a bankruptcy case on behalf of one or more of its clients seeking to collect delinquent taxes on real property in
an estate in which the plaintiff claims an interest. The firm was never served with process and became aware of the case
because the plaintiff mailed it copies of papers he filed. On October 11, 2007 the court dismissed the suit as to all
defendants on its own motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Docket No. CV-0000538-07; A. Mihadas/DBA Meineke Discount Mufflers v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson and
Pioneer Credit Recovery, Inc.; District Court 06-1-02, Erie, Pennsylvania; and Docket No. CV-0000539-07; Athanasos
Mihadas v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson and Alliance One; District Court 06-1-02, Erie, Pennsylvania
Both suits were filed on December 6, 2007 and contain the same allegations: that the defendants "failed to follow existing
appeal procedures. . . , used illegal collection practices and falsified statements" incident to collecting a debt. Damages of
$3,735.48 are sought in No. 538 and $1,895.90 is sought in No. 539. The delinquent accounts consisted of Pennsylvania
sales taxes owing by the muffler shop and personal income taxes owing by Mr. Mihadas. The firm's only involvement with
these accounts was sending one letter on the income taxes. The cases were tried on January 16, 2008 and a ruling was
entered in favor of the firm in both cases.
Case Number 08S00348; American Research Foundation v. Jacques A. Machol, Jr. and Linebarger Goggan Blair &
Sampson, LLP; Small Claims Court, Denver County, Colorado
Filed on March 4, 2008, as an action to recover fees for service if process, this case was dismissed with prejudice on March
27, 2008.
Class Action Complaint Case No. 08-CA-1334; Ralph Johnson and Andrea Gibson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, In the Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for
Lee County, Florida
This is alleged as a class action brought on behalf "of all persons in Florida, who were sent dunning letters or otherwise had
collection attempts asserted against them by Defendant [Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson] for charges due for
application fees for services to be provided by the Public Defender for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, and, whose criminal
charges had been dropped, nolle prossed, dismissed or who were otherwise acquitted of the charges." Florida law imposes
a $40.00 application fee on persons who are indigent and cannot afford legal counsel for representation in criminal cases.
The law also allows the court clerk to add a $10.00 collection fee for services of an attorney to collect the application fee if
the criminal defendant fails to pay it. If the criminal defendant is acquitted or the case is dismissed, the clerk is to refund the
$40.00 to the defendant, if previously paid. On July 1, 2008 the trial court granted the firm's motion to dismiss the suit,
ruling that the application fee did not fall under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The Plaintiffs appealed and on
January 13, 2010 an intermediate Florida Court of Appeals handed down a per curiam ruling affirming the decision of the
trial court.
Docket No. 2008-8158; Vincent Ryan a/k/a Vince Ryan v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; William King and Dale
Linebarger individually and as former members of Linebarger Goggan Blair and Sampson, LLP, and in whatever current
capacity each is associated; 59th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
Vince Ryan is an attorney who formerly worked for the firm but was not a partner in it. He filed this suit on February 8, 2008
claiming that the firm improperly fired him and failed to compensate him for all his work as a legal consultant, as a collector
of accounts receivable, a provider of management services, and as a provider of assistance in the firm obtaining a contract
with the Houston Independent School District. The case was settled and dismissed.
Case No. 08-1726; Canal/Claiborne v. Real Estate Tax Group, Mooring Tax Asset Group III, LLC, Linebarger Goggan Clair
& Sampson, LLP, United Governmental Services of Louisiana, Inc. and City of New Orleans; Civil District Court for the
Parish of Orleans, Division I-14, State of Louisiana
The plaintiff alleged to be the owner of property which the firm sold in November 2004 for delinquent taxes assessed by the
City of New Orleans in 2001 and 2003. When the plaintiff contacted the purchaser of the property at the tax sale the
purchaser stated a redemption price which included a 30% collection penalty as allowed by an ordinance of the City of New
Orleans. The plaintiff alleged that that penalty was struck down as unconstitutional in Cause No. 2002-5170 listed above.
On April 25, 2008 the district court granted the firm's exception of no cause of action and dismissed the case.
Cause No. D-1-GN-08-002003; Guillermo Garcia v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Lori
Robertson, Nikki Rambo, and Leslie Breeland, 261st Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.
Cause No. A-08-CA-514-LY; Guillermo Garcia v. LVNV Funding, LLC, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Lori
Robertson, Nikki Rambo, and Leslie Breeland, United States District Court, Western District of Texas, Austin Division
This suit was filed June 9, 2008 as a purported class action. It arises out of a previous suit filed by the law firm against the
Plaintiff in a Justice of the Peace Court in Hidalgo County, Texas. In that suit the firm, through defendants Robertson and
Breeland, sought to collect a $2,288.89 debt on a credit card issued by CitiBank to Mr. Garcia and subsequently transferred
to LVNV Funding. Mr. Garcia was served in that case but failed to answer or appear, so a default judgment was entered
against him.
In this suit Mr. Garcia alleges that the firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when (a) it caused Mr. Garcia to
be served with the pleading in the Justice Court because the process server was able to read the petition and he was an
outside, third-party not authorized to know of the debt, and (b) it mailed Mr. Garcia a copy of the Motion for Entry of Default
Judgment that the firm filed in the Justice Court case. The suit was removed to federal court where an order dismissing
plaintiff's class action claims was signed on October 17, 2008. On October 14, 2009 the Court entered a judgment
awarding nothing to Mr. Garcia. There was no appeal.
Cause No. SC-08-06-05-3812; Guochun Xie vs. Matz Land Transfer Services and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson,
LLP; Philadelphia Municipal Court, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania
This pro se suit was filed June 5, 2008. It arose out of the plaintiff's purchase of real property in Philadelphia on which there
were delinquent taxes. The Plaintiff claimed he had paid some of these taxes twice and sought to recover at least
$1,051.61 jointly from the firm and the company that handled the closing. On July 25, 2008 the co-defendant, Matz Land
Transfer Services, settled the matter and the case was dismissed.
Cause No. 2008-1507; Juanita Hogg v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; District Court of McLennan County,
Texas
This suit was filed April 23, 2008 but no copy of the petition was sent to the firm until the week of September 8, 2008. The
petition alleged violations of the Texas Finance Code arising out of efforts by the firm to collect charges incurred on a credit
card. The claim was settled and the case dismissed.
Cause No. 08-CV-433; Rocklyn F. Holmes v. Capital One Bank (USA) NA, Jacques A. Machol, III and Linebarger Goggan
Blair & Sampson, District and County Courts, El Paso County Colorado
Cause No. 08-CV-3494; Capital One Bank v. Rocklyn F. Holmes; District and County Courts of El Paso County, Colorado
The firm's Denver office filed Cause No. 08-CV-3494 seeking to collect a $18,795.11 credit card account owed to Capital
One Bank. Mr. Holmes then filed Cause No. 08-CV-433 in federal district court in Colorado alleging that the collection suit
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was settled and dismissed on
December 18, 2008.
Cause No. 2008-48628; Ronald Simon v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Dale Linebarger Thomas S. Goggan,
III, Stephen S. Blair, Jim Blair, DeMetris Sampson, William E. King and Public Records Company, LLP; 127th Judicial
District Court, Harris County, Texas
This suit was filed August 14, 2008. This suit is similar to the other suits filed over abstract fees. It is filed as a class action
in which the causes of action alleged are fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment-money had and received,
and civil conspiracy. The case is being defended
Cause No. 08-CV-166027; Gwen Ross and Phoenix II, Inc. v. Fort Bend County, Fort Bend Independent School District,
City of Sugar Land, Fort Bend Tax Assessor-Collector, Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP, Mandy Oyugi, Damon D.
Edwards, Esq., Maris A. Blair, Esq., and Robert Gorringe, 400th Judicial District Court, Fort Bend County, Texas
Also filed on August 14, 2008, this suit arose out of the Plaintiffs' failure to pay their ad valorem taxes to Fort Bend County,
Fort Bend I.S.D. and the City of Sugar Land. As a result the firm sued the Plaintiffs and recovered a judgment. When the
Plaintiff failed to pay the judgment the firm posted the property for sale and it was purchased by Mr. Gorringe. The Plaintiffs
then attempted to redeem the property. She alleges that during the course of that effort the three firm employees misled her
about the deadline for redemption, with the result she failed to timely redeem the property. She has answered discovery in
which she admits that the attorney who filed this suit told her that the deadline had been miscalculated far enough in
advance of the correct deadline to redeem the property. On January 7, 2010 the court dismissed the firm and its attorneys
and staff for lack of jurisdiction over them.
Cause No. 08-CV-2760; Ryan Roberts v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division
In this suit, which was filed October 9, 2008, the Plaintiff alleges that the firm violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Texas Finance Code by continuing to sent letters seeking payment of a $765.00 debt owing to a County Emergency
Medical District after the Plaintiff had given written notice the debt was disputed. The case was settled and dismissed.
Civil Action No. 08-CV-5357-ER; Angela Wingard v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson,. LLP; United States District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania
This suit was filed on November 13, 2008 as a purported class action based on alleged violations of the Federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and comparable Pennsylvania statutes. The plaintiff's claim is based on a letter sent by the firm to
the plaintiff in which the firm sought to collect a reimbursement for an overpayment of cash assistance paid to the plaintiff by
the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare. The suit was settled and dismissed on December 15, 2008.
No. 08-C-6716; Cheri McKee v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court, Northern District of
Illinois
This is another purported class action suit filed November 24, 2008. The plaintiff alleges that the firm violated the Federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending her a letter in which the identity of the creditor was stated incorrectly. Before
the plaintiff sought class certification the firm made a settlement offer of statutory damages and reasonable attorney's fees.
A motion to dismiss was filed by the firm, after which the case settled and was dismissed.
No. J09-001J6; Rodolfo Chapa v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; Justice Court, Precinct 6, Denton County,
Texas
This pro se suit alleging violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Finance Code, plus a claim for
intentional infliction of emotional distress, was filed January 7, 2009. It seeks actual damages of $2,500.00 and an unstated
amount of punitive damages. The basis of the suit is a prior suit filed by the firm against Mr. Chapa seeking recovery of an
account owed on a Capital One Bank credit card. The damage suit is being defended.
No. 1:09-CV-21631; Angelica Pena v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida
This suit, filed June 16, 2009, alleges the firm violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and comparable Florida
laws by sending plaintiff three letters seeking to collect $340.00 on a check plaintiff issued to United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services, and which she subsequently stopped payment on. Plaintiff alleges that the firm committed a
deceptive trade practice by trying to collect an "inflated amount" from her. The suit is being defended.
No. 09-CV-608 RHS/ACT; Ann L. Scheibner v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court for
the District of New Mexico
In this suit, filed June 22, 2009, the plaintiff alleges that the firm violated the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act by making a demand on her to pay a $1,176.47 debt plaintiff had allegedly incurred
with Lovelace Health System of Albuquerque, New Mexico. She alleges that the firm failed to respond to her request for
verification of the debt and continued to contact her about the debt. The case was settled.
Case No. 09-16919 HRT; In re: George D. Monks, III and Mary E. Monks
Adversary No. 09-1371 HRT; George D. Monks, III and Mary E. Monks v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United
States Bankruptcy Court, District of Colorado
On behalf of the Colorado Department of Revenue the firm sought to collect over $5,000 owed the Department by the
Monks before they filed for relief under Chapter 7, United States Bankruptcy Code on April 22, 2009. The firm's records
reportedly show that the firm initiated no contacts with the Monks after learning of their filing. On July 1, 2009 the Monks
filed this adversary, alleging that the firm repeatedly did contact them after learning of their filing in violation of the automatic
stay of 11 U.S.C. §362(a). The case was settled.
G. D. No. 09-012284; Anthony F. Jeselnik v. City of Chicago and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; In the Court of
Common Pleas of Allegeny County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division
Anthony Jeselnik is an attorney residing in Pennsylvania. He filed this suit on or about July 8, 2009, alleging that the City of
Chicago and the law firm intentionally denied him due process and abused the judicial process by taking a judgment against
him for approximately $7,700 in fines for parking violations incurred by one of his daughters who was a college student in
Chicago. He seeks a joint and several judgment against the City and the firm for $5,000.000.00 The suit is being defended.
Suit No. 2009-20069; Harris County, Texas v. Ramzi Salameh, et al v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP and
Anthony W. Nims: 125th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas
The firm filed suit seeking to collect delinquent ad valorem taxes owed on a residence in Harris County. Mr. Salameh filed
what he titled a "Counter sue" against the taxing units as well as the firm and firm partner Anthony W. Nims for allegedly
committing "malicious persecution (sic)" because he allegedly sold the property to another defendant on a contract for sale
in December 1987. He seeks $1,000,000 is damages. The claim is being vigorously defended.
Cause No. 09-CH-27429; Marisa Woodhouse, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Linebarger Goggan Blair
& Sampson, LLP; Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division
In this case the plaintiff filed suit on August 6, 2009, complaining that the firm violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. §227, by having made unauthorized calls using an automatic or prerecorded voice message in an effort to
collect parking tickets issued to the plaintiff by the City of Chicago. The firm disputes the claim based on its on-going efforts
to update its practices as new court decisions are published.
Cause No. CV-2009-11266; Marilyn Rodriguez-Wong v. Lovelace Health system, Inc., International Portfolio, Inc., and
Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; Second Judicial District Court, County of Bernalillo, State of New Mexico
This suit was filed September 23, 2009. It alleges violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
corresponding New Mexico law. It alleges that the defendants continued to make efforts to collect a debt incurred for
medical services after the plaintiff gave written notice she disputed the claim. The case has been settled.
Cause No. 09-CV-2394; Wayne Andrews v. Gary Quick, Director, IRS Ogden, UT, Roseanne M. Miller, R. A. Mitchell, Roxy
Huber and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court, District of Colorado.
Mr. Andrews has issues with the Internal Revenue Service. In this pro se suit filed October 8, 2009, he alleges that the
defendants have engaged in a conspiracy to extort money from him in violation of the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"). Roxy Huber is the Director of the Colorado Department of Revenue. The firm has a
contract with the Department to collect money owed to it. In that capacity it sent a collection letter to him. The suit is
groundless and is being defended.
Cause No. DC-09-14209-C; David R. Hawkins v. The County of Dallas through the Dallas County Tax Collector as the
representative for the County of Dallas, Dallas County Community College District, the Parkland Hospital District, the Dallas
County School Equalization Fund, the City of Dallas, the Dallas Independent School District, Linebarger Goggan Blair &
Sampson, LLP and Pre-Owned Homes, LLC, 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas
In this case, filed October 19, 2009, the Plaintiff alleges that the firm negligently prosecuted a delinquent tax suit against the
plaintiff, which resulted in plaintiff's real property being sold without having given him proper notices. The suit is being
defended.
Case No. 1:09-CV-7628; Michelle Holt v. Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States District Court, Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division
In this case, which was filed on December 8, 2009, the plaintiff alleges that the firm left an automated message to her on an
answering machine incident to the firm's efforts to collect a debt. This message was later allegedly heard by other persons,
in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The claim is being investigated.
Case No. 08-81400-FJO-7; In re: Vonna Jean Gainor; Adversary No. 09-58058; Vonna Jean Gainor v. Department of the
Treasury and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; United States Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of Indiana
This adversary proceeding, filed November 25, 2009, alleges that the firm violated the automatic stay provision of sections
362 and 727 of the United States Bankruptcy Code "by collecting a debt by way of interception of plaintiff's $1,471.00
income tax refund" and applying it to reduce the amount debtor owed to the United States Department of Agriculture FDMA on a single family home loan assumption agreement. Preliminary investigation of the debtor's account indicates that
the firm had returned the account to the Department of the Treasury a considerable time before the income tax refund was
intercepted. In other words, the firm denies that it played any role in that "interception" and will defend itself aggressively.
Case No. 060100343042009, Complaint No. 003; Alexander Kuznetsov v. Department of Tax Administration, Nationwide
Credit Corporation and Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP; District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County,
Maryland
On December 8, 2009 Mr. Kuznetsov filed this suit complaining that the firm violated the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act by sending him a letter on October 16, 2009 which sought to collect $781.62 in property taxes assessed for
2004 by Fairfax County, Virginia on two automobiles titled to the plaintiff. Because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
does not apply to property taxes, the firm will defend this suit vigorously.
Case No. 09-18269-SBB; In re:Sonia Cabrales; Adversary No. 09-01758-SBB; Tom H. Connolly v. Linebarger Goggan Blair
& Sampson, LLP and LVNV Funding, LLC; United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Colorado
Filed December 11, 2009, this adversary proceeding seeks to recover $1,884.30 which Capital One garnished from
plaintiff's wages within 90 days before plaintiff filed for protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code in violation of
Section 547 of that Code. The claim was settled.
Case No. 09-17789-MER; In re: Michael Benigo Romero; Adversary No. 09-01759-MER; Tom H. Connolly v. Linebarger
Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP and Capital One Bank (USA), NA; United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Colorado
Filed December 11, 2009, this adversary proceeding seeks to recover $2,706.76 which Capital One garnished from
plaintiff's wages within 90 days before plaintiff filed for protection under the United States Bankruptcy Code in violation of
Section 547 of that Code. The claim was settled.
GRIEVANCES AGAINST LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP
On March 19, 2003 a grievance was filed with the Chief Disciplinary Counsel of the State Bar of Texas, Austin, Texas, by
William Denkers, Esq., on behalf of his client, Elaine Alba, against a former firm partner complaining of computer generated
letters seeking collection of delinquent ad valorem taxes assessed to Mrs. Alba on real property located in Houston, Texas.
The matter was appealed to the Board of Disciplinary Appeals of the State Bar of Texas which classified it as a Complaint
alleging a potential violation of Disciplinary Rule 4.02 - Communication with One Represented by Counsel. On November 7,
2003 the District Grievance Committee determined by unanimous vote that there was no Just Cause to believe that
professional misconduct was committed.
On February 26, 2004 a grievance was filed with the State Bar of Texas, Houston Regional Office, by Henry L. Huckaby
against a former firm partner concerning a sale of real property in satisfaction of a judgment awarding the Houston
Independent School District, et al, recovery for delinquent ad valorem taxes assessed on that property. The Office of the
State Bar of Texas Chief Disciplinary Counsel dismissed the grievance. The complainant appealed to The Board of
Disciplinary Appeals of The Supreme Court of Texas, which affirmed the dismissal on April 16, 2004.
On September 23, 2004 a complaint was filed with The Florida Bar by David A. Huber, Esq. against a firm attorney
concerning a letter that sought collection of a fine imposed on Mr. Huber for a civil traffic violation in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. Before attorney learned of the complaints he investigated the matter with the client and determined that the client
might have incorrectly assigned the citation to Mr. Huber. A letter was therefore sent to Mr. Huber on September 30, 2004
informing him that corrective measures had been taken. That information was also sent to The Florida Bar. After
investigation by The Florida Bar it determined that no disciplinary proceedings were appropriate and closed its file.
On December 8, 2004 a complaint was filed with The Florida Bar by Daniel J. Gonzalez against a firm attorney concerning a
letter signed by the attorney that sought collection of a fine imposed on Mr. Gonzalez for a civil traffic violation in MiamiDade County, Florida. After investigation by The Florida Bar it determined that no disciplinary proceedings were appropriate
and closed its file.
In August, 2005 a complaint was filed with the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston by Barbara Paull. Other
than an awareness of this complaint the firm has no information about it.
On January 5, 2006 a complaint was filed with The State Bar of Texas Grievance Committee by Theresa Hearn-Haynes
against the firm. She made unspecified allegations of the firm's lack of authority to collect taxes, fabricating bills, refusing to
provide an accounting of money claimed to be owed, refusing to acknowledge cancelled checks, and participating in fraud
and conspiracy to unlawfully deprive her of property. Her complaint is based on two suits filed by the firm seeking to
recover delinquent ad valorem taxes assessed on property either owned by her or by a trust which she had created. Notice
of both suits was given as required by Texas law and judgments were taken against both properties. The firm is aware of
her complaint because she sent a copy to it, but no formal notice of the complaint has been received from the State Bar of
Texas. Therefore the disposition of her complaint is unknown at this time.
On January 11, 2006 a complaint was filed with the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston by Theresa HearnHaynes. In her complaint she alleged unspecified "fraudulent billing practices" and "numerous ethical violations" committed
by the firm. The firm responded to her complaint even though she had acquired no goods or services from the firm. Her
complaint has not been resolved.
In January 2006 Jerry Sadler of Houston, Texas filed a complaint with the State Bar of Texas against a firm partner. The
complaint alleged that Mr. Sadler had been incorrectly named Sadler Investments, Inc. as a defendant in a delinquent tax
suit. Mr. Sadler was the registered agent for that corporation. It developed that there had been two separate Sadler
Investments, Inc. incorporated in the State of Texas. The first corporation was the proper defendant but it had lost its
charter before the second company, with which Mr. Sadler was affiliated, was created. The Office of the General Counsel
of the State Bar dismissed the complaint, which was never classified as a grievance.
On May 10, 2006 a complaint was filed with the Better Business Bureau of Metropolitan Houston by Jose O. Mata. Mr.
Mata complains about receiving a Notice of Debt from the firm that was sent on behalf of its client the United States
Department of Treasury, Financial Management Services, which Mr. Mata allegedly owes to the Department of Defense,
Defense Finance and Accounting. The alleged debt has been referred to Treasury for review by DFAS.
On October 30, 2006, Cmdr. Andrew Henderson, USN, JAGC, filed identical grievances with the State Bar of Texas against
three firm attorneys. All grievances arise out of the same series of events which arose out of efforts to collect $2,203.10
allegedly owing to the Harris County Toll Road Authority ("HCTRA"). A response was filed but no ruling has been
announced
On November 1, 2006 Michael Colebrook filed a complaint against the firm with the Florida Department of Financial
Services, Office of Consumer Services. That Office did not pursue the complaint.
On March 2, 2007 H. Wayne Woodall filed a grievance against a firm attorney. The complaint is based on a petition on
which she was the attorney of record that sought to collect $0.00 in delinquent taxes. A response explaining how that
occurred was filed and the complaint was dismissed.
In March 2007 Alex Jonatowski filed a complaint with Department of Consumer Affairs of the City of New York alleging the
firm violated Title 6 of the Rules of the City of New York when a firm attorney sent him a demand letter seeking collection of
ad valorem taxes assessed by the City of Richmond, Virginia, on Mr. Jonatowski's automobile for 2001 and 2002. A
response was filed in which the firm acknowledged that New York City has the authority to enact such legislation. However,
RCNY 6, §5-76 defines "debt" exactly as "debt" is defined in the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Based on the
case law and comments of the staff of the Federal Trade Commission to the FDCPA, ad valorem taxes are not "debts."
Therefore, the firm did not violate the Rules of the City of New York when it sent that letter. No response has been received
from the City.
On March 19, 2007 Malikata Pullin filed a complaint with the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York against
the firm for allegedly continuing to make phone calls to her seeking to collect delinquent ad valorem taxes assessed on her
automobile by the City of Richmond, Virginia. The firm has responded and no ruling has been received.
On June 6, 2007 Reta K. Humpal wrote to the Iowa Attorney General and complained about letters she had received from
the firm seeking to collect on a credit card issued by Juniper Bank. The firm responded to the Consumer Affairs Division of
the Iowa Attorney General but no further word has been heard from that office.
On August 16, 2007 Mary E. Hay filed a complaint with the Illinois Attorney General, Consumer Fraud Bureau. The
complaint alleges that on September 27, 2005 the firm accessed her credit report maintained Experian Credit Bureau
incident to collecting an account that had been referred to the firm by the Illinois Department of Revenue for collection. Her
specific complaint appears to be against the Department of Revenue because it failed to have the inquiry removed from her
credit report. The firm has responded to the complaint but no ruling has been received from the Illinois Consumer
Protection Division.
Mr. John McDougal, Jr. filed this complaint with the State of Tennessee, Department of Commerce and Insurance, Division
of Regulatory Boards, Collection Services, on May 14, 2008. He alleged that the improperly revealed he owed a debt, but
not the details, to his father. As a result the firm allegedly invaded his privacy and defamed his character. A response was
filed on May 29, 2008. On July 29, 2008 the Division closed the complaint because the "Tennessee Collection Service Act
exempts practicing attorneys and law firms engaged in collection practice from regulation" by that Division.
Terri Faller, a resident of the State of Utah, filed a grievance on June 2, 2008 with the Office of the Chief Disciplinary
Counsel against a firm attorney. The basis for the grievance was letters the firm had been sending her seeking to collect
over $10,000 in delinquent ad valorem taxes. Ms. Faller alleged that she was not the person who owned the property and
that the letters were being sent to her by mistake. The complaint was dismissed
On June 23, 2008 Joshua Burrows filed a grievance with the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, State Bar of Texas,
against a firm partner. The complaint alleged that the firm had been trying to collect unpaid tollway fees for firm client Harris
County Tollroad Authority on a vehicle which had a toll tag on the alleged violation dates. After reviewing the complaint the
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel determined that it did "not allege Professional Misconduct or a Disability." It
classified the matter "as an Inquiry and [it] has been dismissed."
Robert E. (Bob) Grady, Jr. filed a grievance with the Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel, State Bar of Texas, against six
(6) firm attorneys on August 17, 2008. His complaint arises out of him having been named as a defendant in a delinquent
tax suit filed by an attorney in another law office not collected with Linebarger Goggan. When Linebarger Goggan filed a
petition in intervention is that case it also listed him as a defendant based on the previous pleading filed by the other
attorney. Mr. Grady was dismissed from the suit as soon as the firm realized that he was not the correct person.
Nevertheless, Mr. Grady has rejected all attempts to apologize and demands compensation. Several of the attorneys
named in his complaint had no contact with the case until after Mr. Grady was dismissed from it. The office of the Chief
Disciplinary Counsel has not sent formal notice of the grievance to the named attorneys.
By letter dated September 12, 2008 an attorney representing David Hamlett filed a complaint with the Colorado Collection
Agency Board as the result of the firm continuing to communicate with her client after she gave the firm notice of her
representation. Those communications allegedly violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Colorado law. The firm
sent its response on September 30, 2008. The firm has not received any further communications about this matter.
Marxene Juste filed a complaint with Florida Services Commission, Office of Financial Regulation on September 10, 2008.
Ms. Juste has been a resident of the Florida Department of Corrections since October 7, 2005. Before becoming a guest of
the State of Florida she incurred $2,757.30 in fines arising out of fifteen (15) Miami traffic violations, and an additional
$302.40 fine arising out of one misdemeanor complaint. This complaint alleges a violation of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act. A response was mailed on October 13, 2008. To date the firm has received nothing further
regarding this complaint.
EXHIBIT B
Management Team Resumes
This page intentionally left blank.
Scott A. McGlasson
Professional Experience
2003 — Present
819 Walnut, Suite 309
Kansas City, Missouri
Partner

Manage all aspects of the Kansas City (MO) regional office operations.
Represent governmental entities in the collection of account receivables.
Provide internal legal counsel and support relating to law firm collection policy and
procedure, including oversight relating to the collection of Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act debt.
Serve as legal counsel for nation-wide call centers' operations, handling legal resolution
of debtor claim disputes involving legal counsel and pro se debtors.
Develop legislation to assist clients with collection practices and statutes within their
states.
Serve on the Litigation and Legal Standards Committee, responsible for developing and
overseeing law firm policy and procedures relating to the collection process.
Provide assistance and support on various subcontracting plan and reporting issues
relating to current federal contracts.
Represent the law firm in the American Collectors' Association Member Attorney
Program.
2001 — 2003
Texas Bankers Association
Austin, Texas
Assistant General Counsel - Lobbyist

Provided in-house counsel regarding internal operations of the association and its 600+
member banks in Texas.
Managed legal inquiry service hotline for Texas banks and provided legal and
regulatory guidance.
Routinely prepared and edited publications for monthly magazine and legal update
resources available to bankers and bank counsel in Texas.
Assisted in lobbying Texas legislature and monitoring legislation affecting the banking
industry including Texas home equity lending legislation.
Managed operation and efforts of the Texas Bankers Association Political Action
Committee – BankPac.
1995 — 2001
McGlasson Law Offices
Topeka, Kansas
Attorney

Major emphasis in commercial litigation, collection law, real estate foreclosure, and
creditor representation in bankruptcy.
Routinely handled creditor rights matters on behalf of large national-based consumer
oriented clientele including: Sears Roebuck & Co.; Associates Financial Services;
Household Finance; Beneficial Financial Services; Rent-A-Center, and regional and
local clientele.
Practice also included handling various general practice matters for large variety of
clientele—family law; estate planning; contract negotiation and drafting; and various
forms of dispute resolution.
Managed development and implementation of Internet technology interface for
electronic transfer and management of data between office, court system, and national
clientele.
Responsible for effective education, explanation and communication to clients
regarding technical legal issues and options.
Managed high volume caseload through systematic utilization of legal process and
negotiation for resolution of cases.
Responsible for entire management, strategic planning, and daily operation of high
volume fast-paced office.
Controlled all administrative, client development, and financial aspects of solo practice
operation.
1996 — 2000
Scott & McGlasson Law Offices
Topeka, Kansas
Attorney - Partner

Emphasis solely on collection of account receivable collection matters. High volume
caseload handled throughout the State of Kansas.
Assisted team in development and implementation of new “streamlined” Court
procedures and Shawnee County District Court electronic computerized filing project.
Court filing system to be introduced statewide and available to all 105 counties within
Kansas.
1991 — 1995
Glenn, Cornish, Hanson & Karns, Chartered
Topeka, Kansas
Attorney

Extensive emphasis in commercial litigation/collection law and creditor representation
in bankruptcy proceedings.
Routinely handled general litigation matters.
1989 — 1991
Entz, Anderson and Chanay
Topeka, Kansas
Law Clerk

Provided general litigation support, research, document preparation, discovery, witness
interviews, and trial preparation.
1987 — 1988
General Motors Acceptance Corporation
Topeka, Kansas

Completed internal audits of General Motors automobile dealerships.
Handled collection and resolution of delinquent customer accounts.
Current Professional Memberships

ACA International Member Attorney Program
Commercial Law League of America
Arkansas Bar Association
Austin Bar Association
Texas Bar Association
Kansas Bar Association
Shawnee County, Kansas District Court Judge Pro-Tem (1994 – 1996; 1998; As
appointed)
Topeka Bar Association
Missouri Bar Association
Oklahoma Bar Association
American Bar Association
American Inn of Court – Topeka, Kansas (1992 – 1995)
Topeka Area Collection Bar (1991 – 2001)
Topeka Area Bankruptcy Council (1991 – 2001)
Kansas Collection Attorney Association
Sigma Pi Fraternity
Education
Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, Kansas
Juris Doctor, 1991

May 1991 – Dean’s Honors
American Jurisprudence Award in Products Liability
Emporia State University, Emporia, Kansas
Bachelor of Science (Marketing), 1986
Bachelor of Science (Business Administration), 1986

Sigma Pi Fraternity, President (Two terms 1984 – 1986)
Minor in Communications
Falkenau Leadership Award – Sigma Pi International
Philip A. Berg Outstanding Service Award
Outstanding Young Men of America
Gamma Phi Alpha Award
Michael T. Vallandingham
2004 ⎯ Present
Partner and Management Committee Member

Serves on firm’s Management Committee
Develops long-term policies and procedures
Negotiates new business and M&A agreements
Recommends key hires and strategic relationships
Assists and advises the firm’s various divisions as it designs and improves collection
programs and secures the technology necessary to support the firm’s clients
1998 ⎯ Present
Chief Marketing Officer

Serves as Chair of the firm’s Marketing Committee
Develops and implements overall marketing strategy and related policies and procedures
Assures that firm resources are adequate to support implementation of new clients, and
that it delivers on promises made during the proposal and contracting process
Provides marketing direction and oversight to all firm attorneys, marketing
representatives and support staff
Negotiates contracts for collection services
1998 ⎯ 2002
Director of Fees & Fines Collection Services Division

Developed and launched statewide program for court fees and fines collection services
Drafted all collection notices, call scripts, and legal parameters for these new collection
services
Assisted local offices with marketing and client support
Assisted and advised ITG with design of collection software and related programs
necessary to support clients
Hired, trained and supervised the subsequent managing partner for this division
1996 ⎯ 2001
Director of Student Loan Collection Services Division

Managed comprehensive fourth-placement collection program for Texas Guaranteed
Student Loan Corporation (“TG”), including litigation and bankruptcy representation

Served as primary liaison to TG
Developed collection procedures and related documents for handling call campaigns,
wage garnishment, litigation and bankruptcy matters
Provided regular updates and compliance reviews involving federal and state law
affecting the TG program
Developed “zero tolerance” policy for verified complaints involving collection laws and
regulations
Hired and worked with outside, independent, contract compliance officer to audit the
program annually and implement necessary modifications to ensure continued contract
compliance
1993 ⎯ 1996
Attorney

Represented and expanded East Texas client base from the firm’s Tyler, Texas offices
Managed property tax collection programs for multiple taxing jurisdictions; including
everything from filing lawsuits, executing tax warrants, to client relations and reporting
1990 ⎯ 1992
W.S. Smith Management Company
Lansing Michigan
Director of Marketing

Developed and launched firm-wide marketing program
Drafted all policy handbooks and training materials
Assisted company with creating and implementing new executive suite leasing program
1985 ⎯ 1990
Chess King #9366
San Angelo, Texas
Assistant Manager

Managed and trained sales force
Merchandising
Cash management
General bookkeeping responsibilities
Recent Awards & Recognition

CollectionIndustry.com’s Young Guns Award (2005)
National Register’s Who’s Who in Executives & Professionals (2004-2005)
Pi Kappa Alpha’s Outstanding Alumni Award; Hall of Fame – Eta Epsilon Chapter
(2004, 2006)
Texas Young Republican Federation’s Distinguished Service Award (2003)

Adopt-A-Classroom – Board of Trustees (Since 2004)
ACA International (Since 2002)
Commercial Law League of America (Since 2002)
State Bar of Texas (Since 1993)
Education
1992 Thomas M. Cooley Law School, Lansing Michigan
Juris Doctor, December 1992

Cum Laude
G.P.A.-3.33; Class ranking 13/168
American Jurisprudence Awards: Advocacy & Jurisprudence
Law Review – Assistant Editor (1992)
1989 Angelo State University, San Angelo, Texas
Bachelor of Business Administration, August 1989

Dean’s List
G.P.A.-3.06 (Overall) – 3.26 (Within Major)
Concentration in Marketing
Michael D. Brown
2004 — Present
Chicago, Illinois
Medical Marketing Director

Operational responsibility for Chicago call center.
Contract management for all Chicago clients.
State, City and County marketing member.
Risk and portfolio management.
2002 ⎯ 2004
San Antonio, Texas
Collection Director

Responsible for the daily operations of the San Antonio Collection Center.
Risk and portfolio management.
2001 ⎯ 2002
Felco Autolease
St. Louis, Missouri
Director of Credit and Collections

Management of Credit and Collection Department and portfolio analsis.
1995 ⎯ 2001
Firstar Bank
St. Louis, Missouri
Assistant Vice President-Senior Collections Manager

Managed all retail collection operations.
Risk and portfolio management and credit review and evaluation.

Consumer Bankers Association (Since 1999)
Education
University of Missouri, St. Louis, Missouri
Bachelor of Arts (Economics), 2001
Richard H. Pachecano
1985 — Present
San Antonio, Texas
Director of Fees and Fines (2007 — Present)

Directs the activities of the firm’s Fees & Fines operations.
Chief Information Officer (1985 — 2007)

Directed and managed all phases of the law firm's computer technology and
infrastructure systems, including a staff of 120 computer professionals.
Participated in the firm’s marketing efforts by working with senior client staff members
and elected officials on computer-related issues.
Directed the activities of the firm’s Fees & Fines operations.
Licenses & Certifications

Certified Information Systems Auditor

Texas Association of Assessing Officers
Information Systems Audit & Control Association
Education
University of Texas, San Antonio, Texas
Bachelor of Business Administration (Accounting and Business Data Systems), 1985
Richard C. Haass
2000 — Present
San Antonio, Texas
Chief Technology Officer

Provides leadership role in the design and implementation of technology, including
hardware, software, operating system software, productivity tools, and IT security
Provides leadership role in the design and implementation of the data transfer of client’s
debtor information
Defines the computer and communication technology charter of the firm, which defines
the computer and communication technology mission statement, goals, directions and
strategies for maintaining high customer service levels, as well as providing for future
service expansion
Develops plans for migration of technologies to support necessary future directions
Develops long-range technology architecture and strategy as it is applied to all phases of
the firm’s operations and interactions with its customers and debtors
Defines new approaches and paths for technology, including product design, CRM,
hardware, productivity tools, databases, CASE tools, image processing, letter
composition and archival tools, data standardization tools, multimedia, and telephony
Defines standards for purchasing, identifying, evaluating, selecting, implementing, and
managing the technology of the firm
Develops and manages effective working relationships with other departments, groups,
and personnel with whom work must be coordinated or interfaced
Identifies the emerging technologies to be integrated, and introduced within the firm
Evaluates vendor-supplied databases for skip tracing, debtor identification, and credit
scoring
1995 ⎯ 2000
Houston, Texas
Director of Operations

Managed the firm’s largest office and surrounding region
Designed and implemented the firm’s first regional inbound and outbound call center
Handled all aspects of region’s budget and collection goals
Provided leadership role to region’s litigation department - filing of over 5,000 collection
lawsuits per year
Recruited and trained all mid-level managers
Provided leadership role in the design and implementation of all collection strategies
1992 ⎯ 1995
Corpus Christi, Texas
Office Manager

Managed eight Area Managers and their supporting staff
Responsible for all aspects of the office’s budget and collection goals
Recruited and trained collection staff and area managers
Shared responsibility for contract negotiation and renewals with local attorney.
Designed and implemented all collection strategies
1990⎯ 1992
Corpus Christi, Texas
Area Manager

Served as client liaison and collections manager for 16 local taxing jurisdictions
Managed and executed a complete collections program, including client data exchanges,
notice series, phone campaigns, litigation, tax seizures, property inspections, court
appearances, skip tracing, land title work, internal and client reporting, and revenue
forecasting

Texas Association of Assessing Officers (Since 1990)
Certifications

Certified Information Systems Auditor, CISA
Active Federal Security Clearance since January 2002
Texas Real Estate License 1990
Education
Texas A&I University, College Station, Texas
Bachelor of Business Administration, 1990

Member, Delta Sigma PI Business Fraternity
Don Crawford
2001 — Present
San Antonio, Texas
Contract Manager

Responsible for coordinating with our clients’ third-party software vendors or their
information technology departments to export the delinquent account information for
integration into our collection system.
1997 ⎯ 2001
Government Record Services
Tyler, Texas
Account Manager – Smith County

Managed all hardware and software selection, purchases, implementation and installs.
Responsible for all aspects of IT processes in Smith County.
1996 ⎯ 1997
Walsh Distribution
Texarkana, Texas
IT Director

IT Director for large regional wholesale drug distribution company.
1995 ⎯ 1996
Wholesale Electric
Texarkana, Texas
IT Director
1994 ⎯ 1995
Meyers Bakery
Hope, Arkansas
1979 ⎯ 1994
IBM
Texarkana, Texas
Systems Representative
1977 ⎯ 1979
Peat, Marwick, Mitchell
Shreveport, Louisiana
Auditor
Education
Louisiana Tech University, Ruston, Louisiana
Fifteen hours toward MBA, 1976
Mississippi College, Clinton, Mississippi
Bachelor of Science (Accounting and Mathematics), 1975
John M. Wilson
2004 — Present
San Antonio, Texas
Call Center Operations Manager

Manages daily operations of Call Center.
Recruits, trains, and evaluates collection and administrative staff (currently 75
employees).
Ensures that maximum recovery results are achieved on portfolio consisting of fees,
fines, civil, criminal, juvenile, utilities, commercial debt, and unemployment
overpayments.
Analyzes trends and implements measures to improve productivity.
2002 — 2003
Greentree Finance Company
Birmingham, Alabama
Collection Manager

Responsible for minimizing delinquency and repossessions of Manufactured Housing
portfolio.
2000 — 2002
Aarons Lease Purchase
Birmingham, Alabama
Collection Manager

Responsible for minimizing delinquency and retrieval of lease to purchase merchandise.
2000
National Asset Recovery
Atlanta, Georgia
General Manager

Responsible for daily operations of collection agency call center handling various debt
portfolios.
1997 — 2000
Consolidated Accounts Management
Birmingham, Alabama
Chief Operating Officer

Responsible for daily operations of a medical collection agency.
Protected existing client base while marketing new clients and product services.
Evaluated subcontracted collection attorneys and agencies.
Forecast revenue, expense and profit.
1992 — 1995
THE Finance Company
Jacksonville, Florida
Regional Collection Manager
Education
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
Bachelor of Business Administration, 1976