Rubin & Rothman, LLC (R&R) is a law firm based in New York state that specializes in third-party debt collection. R&R has received complaints alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), including attempting to collect debts not owed and threatening to take actions that cannot legally be taken. If you have been contacted by Rubin & Rothman, make sure you understand your rights before responding.
The harassing company pays our fees.
They’re legit. According to the BBB, Rubin & Rothman, LLC was founded in 1960 and incorporated in 1999. The BBB established R&R’s profile page in 1992. R&R is listed as a law firm specializing in collection and bankruptcy law. Buzzfile estimates R&R’s annual revenue at $9.2 million and the size of its headquarters staff at 55 employees, with a total of 57 employees across all locations.
According to its website, Rubin & Rothman “is a New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts creditor’s rights law firm.” R&R provides “the greatest level of professionalism and diligence to each claim placed with our office.” Their “team of in-house attorneys has over 100 years’ litigation experience and are well versed in handling all aspects of creditor’s rights litigation.” Their collections “staff is comprehensively trained in all federal and state regulations.” R&R “strives to treat all consumers with respect and dignity while upholding the highest standards of the legal profession…and regularly surpasses the expectations of …clients, consumers, and the courts.”
The Rubin & Rothman website does not provide any detailed information about its business practices or the types of debts its staff collects. The home page includes a link to a consumer rights page that provides a link to an information page about the FDCPA on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) website. They also provide a Complaints page that states that R&R “prides itself on providing the greatest level of professionalism and customer service to those involved in the debt collection process” despite “uncertain times in which millions of Americans are suffering from overwhelming debt caused by circumstances that are often beyond…their control.”
The Rubin & Rothman website also provides a Contact page, a Payment Options page, and an Online Payments page.
Who are we? We are Lemberg Law, a Consumer Law Firm
Lemberg Law is a consumer law firm helping victims of collection harassment and abuse. We are ranked A+ by the BBB. We’ve helped more than 15,000 consumers stop harassment and recover money from debt collectors. Harassed? Abused? Misled by a collector? Call our Helpline today! There is no charge unless we win.
The BBB has closed 6 complaints against Rubin & Rothman in the preceding three years, with 2 complaints closed in the past 12 months. Half of those complaints allege problems with billing and collections, with the rest alleging problems with delivery issues and customer service. As of March 2015, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has closed 18 complaints against Rubin & Rothman. Justia lists at least 6 cases of civil litigation involving R&R.
Absolutely. Here are some Sample Cases against Rubin & Rothman LLC
In May 2012, in City Court of Mount Vernon, a judge issued a Decision and Order in a hearing held to determine whether Rubin & Rothman should be sanctioned for filing a frivolous lawsuit and held in contempt of court. In this case, R&R originally filed a suit against the consumer in June 2010. The consumer filed an Answer to R&R’s complaint and at the initial hearing, the consumer demanded, and R&R was ordered, to produce “the entire chain of assignments of the alleged debt, the credit card agreement and other documentary proof of” R&R’s case by the end of October 2010. At the subsequent hearing,Rubin & Rothman had not yet produced the required documentation and requested an adjournment until January 2011. The court granted R&R’s request but warned them that they would not tolerate any further delays. In January 2011, the parties reconvened, but R&R still had not produced the required documentation, so they requested that the case be discontinued. The court refused to honor R&R’s request to discontinue the case. Instead, all claims against the consumer were dismissed and a hearing was set for February 2011 to determine “whether R&R should be held in contempt of the Court for failing to provide the requisite documents as directed and whether sanctions should be imposed…for their frivolous conduct in commencing a lawsuit without having the requisite proof needed.”
At the contempt and sanctions hearing, Rubin & Rothman produced “a copy of a statement by… a Senior Sales Specialist at GE Money Bank… entitled, … ‘Affidavit of Sale,’ and which was allegedly sworn to before a notary public in the State of Georgia.” The statement “swears that GE Money Bank sold the consumer’s account” to a debt purchaser and indicates the amount owed. R&R “also presented an undated Bill of Sale…that referenced a Forward Flow Receivables Purchase Agreement…that indicates that GE Money Bank sold and assigned certain receivables as set forth in certain files.” In addition, R&R “presented… an undated document entitled Declaration of Account Transfer which indicates that…certain receivables were sold and assigned …on a receivable file dated February 17, 2009… and that states that they were subsequently sold to LVNV Funding, LLC,” the creditor whom Rubin & Rothman represented. Next, R&R produced an “untitled document which indicates that the receivable files…were designated as part of a transfer group.” The document was accompanied by a “copy of a statement from…an untitled, allegedly authorized representative of the debt purchaser, which was allegedly sworn to before a notary public.” The statement swears…that the “account… is owned by LVNV Funding, LLC and that the account was acquired by LVNV Funding, LLC from its affiliate.” Finally, R&R produced “a copy of the computer screen printout that contains the electronically stored information regarding the consumer’s alleged credit card account which was reviewed and testified to by…an employee of…the servicing agent for” the original creditor.
The court’s decision indicated that “the documents presented by Rubin & Rothman were… contradictory regarding the chain of assignment of the alleged debt”; that the sworn statements were “inconsequential to R&R’s contention that it had a…case against the” consumer and amounted to hearsay that only highlighted “the fact that there is no evidentiary proof that the consumer’s account was actually assigned by or to any party.” In addition, the court condemned R&R’s conduct as “egregious, dishonest and unprofessional and holds the courts and the entire legal profession up for public scorn and ridicule. Such conduct shall not be countenanced by the Court.” Rubin & Rothman was ordered to pay $10,000 in punitive damages and warned that the next occurrence will result in an order of contempt.
Rubin & Rothman, LLC
1787 Veterans Memorial Highway
Islandia, NY 11749
Telephone: (631) 234-1500
Website: https://www.rubinrothman.com/
Federal laws protect you. The Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) regulates the behavior of collection agencies by prohibiting actions such as the use of abusive or threatening language; harassment; or the use of false or misleading information to collect a debt. The FCRA regulates how collection agencies and creditors report delinquent debts to credit reporting agencies. Additional consumer protection laws include the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Consumer Financial Protection Act (CFPA).
But here’s the rub: If you want to enforce your rights, or recover money for violations — you need to sue. These laws provide individuals like you with a means to seek monetary damages in court. For example, the FDCPA allows consumers who have been violated to recover damages of up to $1,000, plus attorney fees and court costs.
Your debt harassment checklist:
“Every e-mail sent or phone call made to your firm was answered not only promptly, but virtually immediately. Mr. Hirnyk patiently explained every legal concept – including what was possible and what was not – under existing state and federal consumer law.”
“Prior to contacting you, we had tried repeatedly to handle this matter without threatening litigation. In the end, not only were they unapologetic, but they were dismissive – even of an attorney friend who called on our behalf. Sincerest thanks for resolving this matter for us!”
“Know that Sergei, and your firm did a good thing. You took on a big company for little people and righted a wrong. For this we are grateful.”
“Thank you and your team at Lemberg Law for the exceptional work you did on my behalf. I have never experienced the level of care, professionalism, timeliness in follow-through, and monetary compensation obtained through your firm.”
We can absolutely help. Call us today.
The short answer is yes. Contact us now to find out more.
Share your story
Have you had a bad experience with this agency’s debt collectors? Sound off and share your experience with other visitors in the comment box below.
Sergei Lemberg is an attorney focusing on consumer law, class actions related to automotive issues, and personal injury litigation. With nearly two decades of experience, his areas of practice include Lemon Law (vehicle defects), Debt Collection Harassment, TCPA (illegal robocalls and texts), Fair Credit Reporting Act, Overtime claims, Personal Injury cases, and Class Actions. He has consistently been recognized as the nation's "most active consumer attorney." In 2020, Mr. Lemberg represented Noah Duguid before the United States Supreme Court in the landmark case Duguid v. Facebook. He is also the author of "Defanging Debt Collectors," a guide that empowers consumers to fight back against debt collectors and prevail, as well as "Lemon Law 101: The Laws That Lemon Dealers Don't Want You to Know."
See more posts from Sergei Lemberg
My pay has been garnished for a judgment to Rubin & Rothman for the amount of $6,000. However $14783.31 has been paid to them by garnishment all towards intrest & $0 to the principal. How do I stop this becuase the debt should be satisfied.