New Mexico Statutes
Article 18A - Collection Agencies
Section 61-18A-1 - Short title.

Chapter 61, Article 18A NMSA 1978 may be cited as the "Collection Agency Regulatory Act".
History: Laws 1987, ch. 252, § 1; 2019, ch. 144, § 24.
The 2019 amendment, effective July 1, 2019, changed "This act" to "Chapter 61, Article 18A NMSA 1978".
Collection agency may not practice law directly. — A collection agency engages in the unauthorized practice of law when it represents parties before judicial bodies, prepares pleadings, manages litigation, gives legal advice, renders services requiring legal skill, or prepares instruments which secure legal rights. State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc., 1973-NMSC-087, 85 N.M. 521, 514 P.2d 40.
Collection agency may not practice law indirectly. — Soliciting assignments of claims on a contingent fee basis and filing suit thereon on the same basis constitutes the practice of law. State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc., 1973-NMSC-087, 85 N.M. 521, 514 P.2d 40.
Collection agency may not practice law by pro forma assignments. — Where the agency procures the assignment merely to facilitate filing suit, legal services are in effect offered; this is unauthorized practice. State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc., 1973-NMSC-087, 85 N.M. 521, 514 P.2d 40.
Section 61-18A-26 NMSA 1978 does not authorize the practice of taking the assignment of debts from an underlying creditor on a contingency fee basis and the filing of a suit by the collection agency's own attorneys in the collection agency's own name. Kolker v. Duke City Collection Agency, 750 F. Supp. 468 (D.N.M. 1990).
Collection agency may not control litigation. — Where assignment is pro forma, the fact that the agency directs the litigation constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. State ex rel. Norvell v. Credit Bureau of Albuquerque, Inc., 1973-NMSC-087, 85 N.M. 521, 514 P.2d 40.
Collection agency may not practice law by procuring legal services. — A collection agency may solicit claims for collection, but it engages in the unauthorized practice of law when it holds out that it can procure or perform legal services in the collection process. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-28.
Creditor must select attorney freely. — If nonlitigation methods fail, the agency must refer the claim back to the creditor and must advise him to select an attorney of his own choice. For the agency to take a pro forma interest in the claim to enable it to file suit in its own name is to actually furnish legal services and as such is unauthorized. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-28.
Collection agency may not otherwise interfere with attorney-client relation. — If the creditor selects an attorney who is also an agency attorney, the agency may not control the litigation or interfere in any way with the attorney-client relationship; such control or interference constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. 1974 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 74-28.
Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — 15A Am. Jur. 2d Collection and Credit Agencies §§ 1 to 10, 15, 16.
Regulation and licensing of collection and commercial agencies or representatives thereof, 54 A.L.R.2d 881.
Liability of collection agency for failure to pursue claim, 76 A.L.R.2d 1155.
Civil liability of attorney for abuse of process, 97 A.L.R.3d 688.
What constitutes "debt" for purposes of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 1692a(5)), 159 A.L.R. Fed. 121.