Consumer Financial Services Litigation
Bryan Cave's Consumer Financial Services Litigation team represents financial institutions in high stakes cases nationwide. Our trial lawyers regularly appear in putative consumer class actions and individual claims in state and federal courts, including multi-district and bankruptcy actions, as well as in arbitrations and other alternative dispute proceedings. These cases often involve claims brought under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, FCRA, FDCPA, ECOA, the Fair Housing Act, state unfair and deceptive practices statutes (UDAP), privacy laws, and the common law. In addition to consumer disputes, we also represent institutions in connection with business to business disputes relating to their financial services activities. Our clients include banks, mortgage companies, mortgage servicers, credit card issuers, and insurance companies.
Many of these matters involve simultaneous government enforcement actions or investigations and multiple class actions, where the need to coordinate is paramount. Our team members across the U.S. — in Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Irvine, Kansas City, New York, Phoenix, Santa Monica, San Francisco, St. Louis and Washington D.C. — work together to provide a seamless and effective response. Our team, which includes former in-house counsel at major financial institutions, understands the variety of risk considerations involved in consumer litigation and regulatory enforcement. We work to achieve matter resolutions that meet both our clients' short term needs and broader strategic goals.
We represent clients in purported nationwide and statewide consumer class actions involving a variety of claims. These cases often challenge our clients' basic business practices, including the ability to charge certain fees, do business with affiliates, and foreclose on loan collateral, and involve issues with widespread industry impact. Current representations involve:
Claims under RESPA alleging sham fees, illegal kickbacks and/or marked up third party fees in connection with mortgage origination;
Claims against mortgage servicers under the FDCPA for alleged failure to provide debt validation and other practices;
Claims alleging state law claims for breach of contract or improper servicing activity in connection with servicing and REO sales;
Suits under state unfair competition laws relating to mortgage origination and servicing practices including force-placed insurance and servicing fees;
Suits alleging claims for failure to provide loan modifications;
Suits seeking rescission and other TILA remedies, as well as suits alleging unfair competition in the financial services industry.
Our practice involves much more than litigation. We also assist clients in pre-suit activities, such as internal investigations, development of internal company procedures and advice about avoidance of litigation risk.
Our Consumer Financial Services clients benefit from a variety of other Bryan Cave resources. Our Financial Services and Real Estate practices bring substantial knowledge of the complex regulatory and business environment in which our clients operate. Similarly, our Public Policy and Government Affairs practice includes preeminent lawyers and advisors who provide government relations and strategic counsel on issues that impact financial institution operations and business models. Bryan Cave’s One Firm philosophy promotes a cross-discipline approach to addressing our clients’ needs.
Bryan Cave's Client Technology Group is widely known for the innovative business and legal solutions it has created for a number of clients in the financial sector. For example, we developed a new technology solution that had a significant impact on legal spend for a national mortgage lender beset with hundreds of mortgage-related suits. Bryan Cave created a web-based risk assessment system that let lawyers develop risk and cost profiles very early in each matter and then track those variables throughout the life of each case. The availability at any point in a case of detailed risk and cost assessments highlighted cases that could and should be settled early, and that in turn reduced unnecessary discovery and trial expense.