Brock and Scott Lawsuit: Cases, Consent Order & Complaints

Brock & Scott, PLLC, a Winston-Salem debt collection and foreclosure law firm, has been sued repeatedly by consumers under the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and state analogs, with the most significant Brock and Scott lawsuit being a Maryland appellate decision that revived a widow’s forgery-based claims and held that debt collection law firms must investigate a debtor’s disputes before pressing forward. Outcomes elsewhere have gone the firm’s way more often than not, and Maryland regulators separately extracted a $30,000 consent order in 2025 over foreclosure mediation paperwork failures.

Newsom v. Brock & Scott (Maryland)

The case that carries the most weight for consumers began with a $50,000 home equity line of credit that Leslie Newsom took out from Capital One in 2011. The promissory note and deed of trust purported to encumber the home he owned jointly with his wife, Mary. After Leslie died in 2015, Capital One hired Brock & Scott to foreclose. Mary Newsom said she had never signed the deed, never attended a closing, and knew nothing about the loan.¹

Her attorney sent Brock & Scott repeated written notices disputing the debt and the signature. The firm recorded the previously unrecorded deed of trust in 2017 and continued pursuing foreclosure anyway. Newsom then sued Capital One, Brock & Scott, and substitute trustee Christine Johnson in Prince George’s County Circuit Court, alleging violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Mortgage Fraud Protection Act, along with injurious falsehood and malicious use of process. The trial judge threw out every claim at the close of her case, reasoning that the firm had no role in creating the deed and was not present when it was signed.²

In November 2021, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals reversed. The court held that law firms engaged in debt collection have a duty under Maryland consumer protection statutes to investigate a debtor’s claims before pursuing collection, and that whether Brock & Scott had acted with “reckless disregard” by ignoring Newsom’s disputes was a jury question. The panel vacated the dismissal of the consumer debt collection and mortgage fraud claims and remanded for a new trial. Because the opinion was designated “reported,” it carries precedential weight across Maryland.¹²

Capital One separately settled with Newsom and ended the foreclosure. The litigation against Brock & Scott and Christine Johnson continued on remand.²

Jones v. Brock & Scott (North Carolina)

Donald and Janet Jones of Thomasville sued Brock & Scott and Trustee Services of Carolina, LLC (TSC) after the two entities began nonjudicial foreclosure on their home on behalf of Madison Revolving Trust 2017. The Joneses argued the assignment of their deed of trust was defective and that TSC was the firm’s “alter ego,” citing marketing materials that offered TSC’s services to lenders as part of a “complete, beginning-to-end debt collection package.” They brought claims under the FDCPA and the North Carolina Debt Collection Act.³

Davidson County Superior Court dismissed everything in March 2020. In February 2022, the North Carolina Court of Appeals largely affirmed. Applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, the majority held that entities engaged primarily in nonjudicial foreclosure enforce security interests rather than collect debts in the general sense, and are covered by only a narrow slice of the FDCPA. A dissenting judge read Obduskey more narrowly and would have allowed discovery into whether Brock & Scott’s broader business met the general debt collector definition. The Joneses did win one point: the court reversed dismissal of their state-law claim against TSC under the North Carolina Debt Collection Act, finding they had adequately alleged consumer status.³

Brown v. Brock & Scott (Georgia)

A Georgia consumer sued the firm over validation letters tied to two Navy Federal Credit Union debts. The plaintiff claimed that after sending a written refusal to pay on April 10, 2023, the firm’s later communications violated the FDCPA’s cease-contact rule. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia granted Brock & Scott summary judgment, ruling that the validation letters fit within recognized exceptions to the cease-communication requirement and that the plaintiff’s own requests for validation waived the protection being asserted.⁴

Downs v. Brock & Scott (Tennessee)

Stephen A. Downs, representing himself, sued Brock & Scott and JP Morgan Chase Bank in the Middle District of Tennessee in 2025. He alleged FDCPA and Tennessee Consumer Protection Act violations based on the firm’s refusal to produce internal representation agreements, its pursuit of a charged-off account, and an email its staff sent to a judge’s chambers that he called an unauthorized third-party communication.⁵

On January 29, 2026, District Judge Aleta A. Trauger adopted Magistrate Judge Alistair Newbern’s recommendation and dismissed the case. The court held the FDCPA does not require a law firm to turn over internal attorney-client documents to a debtor, that a charge-off is a bookkeeping designation that does not extinguish the right to collect, and that Chase, collecting its own debt, is not a “debt collector” under the statute. The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act claims failed because the court treated Brock & Scott’s collection work as the practice of law rather than “trade or commerce.”⁴ Downs filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2026.⁵

Maryland Consent Order

Separate from any private suit, the Maryland Commissioner of Financial Regulation investigated complaints that Brock & Scott failed to give at least ten Maryland borrowers the documents state law requires at least twenty days before scheduled post-filing foreclosure mediation. On June 30, 2025, the firm signed a consent order resolving the investigation without a hearing. It paid a $30,000 investigative fee and represented that it had corrected its internal procedures. The order stays in effect for one year. The Commissioner noted that it was “not known whether any borrower was harmed or suffered damages,” and the order does not bar affected borrowers from bringing their own claims.⁶

Consumer Complaints on the Public Record

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s database holds nearly 200 complaints filed against the firm between 2011 and mid-2024. The Better Business Bureau lists three complaints in the most recent three-year window and shows the firm as A+ accredited. Those BBB complaints involved duplicate validation letters being sent instead of direct negotiation, collection allegedly aimed at the wrong debt, and delays producing payoff paperwork for real estate closings. The firm responded to each, but the consumers did not mark themselves satisfied.⁷

A recurring theme is the firm’s insistence that consumers phone in to discuss payment plans or settlements rather than negotiate by mail. Brock & Scott has said its clients sometimes prohibit mail-based settlement negotiations and direct consumers to call during business hours.⁷

1
Maryland Courts. Newsom v. Brock & Scott, PLLC, No. 532, Sept. Term 2019
2
The Daily Record. Law Firms Have Duty to Investigate Before Debt Collection, MD Appeals Court Says
3
FindLaw. Jones v. Brock & Scott, PLLC, No. COA20-792
4
ACA International. Downs v. Brock & Scott, FDCPA Proof of Representation
5
PACER Monitor. Downs v. Brock & Scott, PLLC et al, Case No. 3:25-cv-00921
6
Maryland Department of Labor. Settlement Agreement and Consent Order, CFR-FY2024-41
7
Better Business Bureau. Brock & Scott PLLC Complaints