In Andrews & Lawrence Professional Services, LLC v. Mills, 467 Md. 126 (2020), the Maryland Supreme Court delivered a wake-up call to attorneys who dabble in debt collection: just because you’re a lawyer doesn’t mean you’re exempt from consumer protection laws. The ruling draws a sharp boundary around the so-called “professional services” exemption in Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act and suggests that both attorneys and their clients can face real liability for overzealous collection efforts.

The Debt Spiral in Galyn Manor

David and Tammy Mills owned a home in the Galyn Manor community and found themselves in a billing dispute with their HOA over unpaid assessments. The HOA retained Andrews & Lawrence to collect, and what followed was a series of communications and legal filings that the Millses claimed escalated their debt without proper notice or legal justification. When they sued under the Consumer Protection Act, the law firm cried foul—arguing that their conduct was part of their professional legal services and therefore beyond the CPA’s reach.

The Court Wasn’t Buying It

The Court disagreed. While lawyers may be exempt when performing traditional legal services like providing advice or advocacy in litigation, they aren’t immune when they act like debt collectors. The Court emphasized:

It would be illogical for the General Assembly to prohibit debt collection agencies from engaging in conduct in violation of the MCDCA, such as making harassing debt collecting phone calls or sending debt collection letters knowingly claiming rights that do not exist, while giving lawyers carte blanche to engage in such conduct in the name of rendering “professional services.”

Just as important, the Court held that clients—like the HOA here—can be held vicariously liable for the misconduct of the lawyers they hire. That means hiring a law firm won’t shield a company from accountability if the firm breaks the rules.

The opinion gives weight to the idea that Maryland’s consumer protection laws are intended to be broadly protective—even when attorneys are involved.

A Warning Shot for Foreclosure Attorneys?

Although the Court didn’t directly address substitute trustees in foreclosure, the logic of Mills has serious implications for that world. Many substitute trustees are attorneys appointed by mortgage servicers to carry out foreclosures in Maryland. If those attorneys engage in deceptive practices—say, sending misleading notices or tacking on unauthorized fees—the Mills ruling opens the door to CPA liability.

This has the potential to reshape how law firms approach foreclosure work, especially in close-call situations where legal process and collection pressure start to blur. For homeowners, this decision could serve as a new avenue for challenging a wrongful foreclosure.

Takeaways for Attorneys and HOAs

• Attorneys cannot assume blanket immunity under the Consumer Protection Act when performing hybrid legal/collection functions.
• Clients—such as HOAs or mortgage lenders—can be vicariously liable for their attorneys’ collection misconduct.
• Courts will apply a fact-intensive test to determine whether an attorney’s conduct falls outside the “professional services” safe harbor.
• The ruling may invite challenges to substitute trustee conduct in foreclosure proceedings, particularly when statutory procedures aren’t scrupulously followed.

For Maryland consumers facing abusive debt collection or foreclosure tactics, consulting a Maryland consumer protection attorney is no longer just good advice—it may be the only thing standing between a lawful process and financial ruin.

Image Credit: OpenAI DALL-E