In the 1994 case of George W. Heintz, et al. v. Darlene Jenkins, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a provision in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) applies to lawyers who regularly collect consumer debts as part of their legal practice. The FDCPA was enacted to eliminate abusive debt collection practices by debt collectors and promote fair treatment for consumers; however, it was unclear whether this law applied to attorneys engaged in litigation activities on behalf of their clients seeking payment from delinquent borrowers. In this case, Darlene Jenkins sued her mortgage servicer's attorney George Heintz for violating provisions under FDCPA during foreclosure proceedings against her property due to unpaid loans. The court held that such attorneys are not exempted from complying with FDCPA rules even when they're litigating these matters in court.

In the dissenting opinion for Heintz v. Jenkins, Justice Scalia argued that a lawyer who is collecting a debt on behalf of his client should not be considered a "debt collector" under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). According to him, this interpretation was inconsistent with both the text and structure of the FDCPA. The majority's view would mean that every attorney who regularly conducts litigation in order to collect consumer debts would fall within its scope - an outcome he believed Congress did not intend when it enacted this legislation. Furthermore, he pointed out potential problems arising from applying certain provisions of FDCPA to lawyers engaged in litigation which could interfere with their ethical duties as officers of court and create conflicts between federal law and state rules governing legal practice.