1. One of the concerns raised by Carlisle was that if attorneys could be held liable for their reasonable misinterpretations of the FDCPA’s requirements, there would be a “flood of lawsuits” against creditors’ attorneys by plaintiffs seeking damages and attorneys’ fees. Should this concern have any bearing on the outcome of this case? Why or why not?

2. Jerman’s attorneys contended that if the Court agreed with Carlisle’s argument (that the bona fide error defense included errors in legal interpretation), ethical debt collectors would be placed at a disadvantage. Why would this be?

Respondents in this case are a law firm, Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A., [Legal Professional Association], and one of its attorneys, Adrienne S. Foster (collectively Carlisle). In April 2006, Carlisle filed a complaint in Ohio state court on behalf of a client, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Carlisle sought foreclosure of a mortgage held by Countrywide in real property owned by petitioner Karen L. Jerman. The complaint included a “Notice,” later served on Jerman, stating that the mortgage debt would be assumed to be valid unless Jerman disputed it in writing. Jerman’s lawyer sent a letter disputing the debt, and Carlisle sought verification from Countrywide. When Countrywide acknowledged that Jerman had, in fact, already paid the debt in full, Carlisle withdrew the foreclosure lawsuit.