In 2019 the Consumer Finacial Protection Bureau (CFPB) sued the popular credit repair company, Lexington Law. I don’t want to rehash the complaint again but you can read all the details on the original complaint filed by the CFPB, here.
Let’s see if I can summarize it in the fewest number of words: CFPB claims affiliates were deceptive.
The case against PGX Holdings, Progrexion Marketing, Progrexion Teleservices, eFolks, CreditRepair.com, and John C. Heath, Attorney at Law PLLC is still ongoing with new court filings by the CFPB.
These cases can drag on for years so it’s no surprise it is still active.
CFPB Stated Background
For the most recent court filing, the CFPB provided this background on the issue at hand.
“The Progrexion Defendants (“Progrexion”) employ sales agents to telemarket credit repair services to consumers on behalf of John C. Heath, Attorney at Law, PC. (“Heath”). Progrexion leases the Lexington Law tradename to Heath. Progrexion records and retains the initial sales and case setup calls. Under its agreement with Heath, Progrexion also records and retains calls made by consumers to complain about or cancel their credit repair Lexington Law enrollment. The Bureau has served Progrexion with discovery requests for these recordings.
On August 14, 2020, Progrexion clawed back one email and nine call recordings, and their duplicates, on grounds of attorney-client privilege. Consistent with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(A), the Bureau promptly sequestered the documents and requested additional information to assess the privilege claim.
Progrexion provided a second privilege log with some additional information, but for eight of nine calls, still failed to identify the call participants or their relationship (if any) to an attorney or law firm. For the clawed-back email, Progrexion refuses to explain what purported “legal services and investigation of allegations” are involved. The subject line is “Affiliate/Marketing Concern” and the sender and recipient are Progrexion compliance personnel, not legal staff at John C. Heath, Attorney-at-Law (Heath).
Separately, the parties compromised on a sample of call recordings to satisfy the Bureau’s various call recording discovery requests. Despite agreeing on the sampling size and methodology, Defendants insist that the call recordings are privileged and that either Lexington Law consumers must provide a privilege waiver prior to production or that all statements by Lexington Law consumers must be redacted. However, the recordings the Bureau’s narrowed requests seek are non-privileged for the same reasons as the clawed-back items.
The clawed-back materials and the call recordings appear fall into two categories – sales calls and consumer complaints – and neither in this case are protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Bureau accordingly requests that the Court overrule Defendants’ privilege objections and order production of the agreed-upon recordings within 21 days of the Bureau’s identification of the samples.”
So that’s where things, in this case, stand right now. It looks like it is still in the disagreeing about administrative issues bucket. I’m sure there is more to come.