Lead Counsel independently verifies Collection attorneys in Palo Alto by conferring with California bar associations and conducting annual reviews to confirm that an attorney practices in their advertised practice areas and possesses a valid bar license for the appropriate jurisdictions.
Most businesses follow a general process for collecting debts, from friendly overdue reminders, to formal demand letters. Many businesses then turn the debt over to a debt collection agency that may resort to threats, misrepresentation, harassment, and legal action.
Delinquent debtors, however, are protected from harassing, oppressive, and abusive collection methods by the Federal Trade Commission’s Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. If the debt collector persists, acquiring the services of a Palo Alto attorney practicing in debt collection defense can end the harassment and possibly file a lawsuit against the collection agency on your behalf.
In legal practice, experience matters. An experienced attorney will likely have handled issues similar to yours many, many times. Therefore, after listening to your situation, the attorney should have a reasonable idea of the time line for a case like yours and the likely resolution.
An attorney consultation should provide you with enough information so that you can make an informed decision on whether to proceed with legal help.
A reputable attorney will be very upfront about how he/she will charge you. The three most common fee structures that attorneys use to charge for their services are:
Depending on your specific legal situation, it’s possible that only one type of fee structure is available. For instance, criminal defense attorneys almost always bill by the hour. In a flat fee arrangement, an attorney accepts a one-time payment to help you resolve your issue. With a contingent fee agreement, the client pays little to nothing upfront and the attorney receives a percentage of the money recovered if you win your case.
Personal jurisdiction – Requirement that a particular court have authority over a person, in order to bind that person to the judgment of the court, based on minimum contacts. International Shoe Co v. Washington is a landmark Supreme Court case outlining the scope of a state court’s reach in personal jurisdiction.