ST. LOUIS, MO – In the world of plaintiff’s law firms, buying leads and engaging in telemarketing schemes is a common practice. These firms attend conferences like the esteemed “Mass Torts Made Perfect,” where numerous lead sellers vie to capture the attention of thousands of lawyers eager to purchase their leads. However, not all these endeavors go smoothly, as Burger Law has recently discovered.
Burger Law finds itself entangled in a challenging lawsuit brought by an unrepresented plaintiff. The case is causing quite a stir. In a recent ruling, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that Burger Law’s purchase of leads from a third party named “Consumer Legal” could constitute a telemarketing scheme for which the firm could be held accountable. It is worth noting that Burger Law did not actively make any of the calls themselves.
The court stated that the plaintiff’s allegations were supported by sufficient evidence, negating Burger Law’s assertions. The plaintiff claimed that there was a formal agency relationship between Burger Law and Consumer Legal, backed by a contractual agreement governing Consumer Legal’s telemarketing activities on behalf of Burger Law. The plaintiff alleged that Burger Law controlled the telemarketing scheme, setting lead criteria while Consumer Legal made solicitation calls to potential clients in Burger Law’s name. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed to have received multiple solicitation calls and was transferred to Burger Law during one call, where the firm continued to market its legal representation. Thus, the court found it reasonable to infer that Burger Law could be held vicariously liable for Consumer Legal’s phone calls.
This case serves as a reminder of the substantial risks involved in purchasing third-party leads. The importance of thorough compliance and vetting procedures for all third-party vendors cannot be overstated. Each interaction with potential clients must be approached with caution to avoid potential legal entanglements.
It is clear that the world of plaintiff’s law firms is not without its complications, even amidst the glitz and glamour of conferences like “Mass Torts Made Perfect.” The consequences of participating in telemarketing schemes can be severe, as Burger Law is currently experiencing. This case underscores the need for diligence and adherence to regulatory standards in order to navigate the murky waters of lead purchasing successfully.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve, it is crucial for law firms to adapt and establish robust compliance practices. By doing so, they can safeguard both their reputation and financial stability while ensuring ethical conduct throughout the litigation process. It remains to be seen how Burger Law will navigate this particular legal battle, but one thing is certain – the implications of this case will resonate far beyond the confines of their courtroom.