I won’t bore with details, but I’m a lawyer who primarily sues banks for customers. And I’ve seen the lawsuits I file lead/contribute to changes in bank behavior and policy.

The regulatory protections are there. Now lawyers need to punch banks on the nose until they decide they want to do more to stop the fraud in the first instance.

But it’s strange, clients have almost like a Stockholm syndrome with the banks. Their rational is often something like “I don’t want to sue them and make them mad, because that might mean I won’t get my money back”

But you’re not going to get your money back unless you sue. Meanwhile deadlines pass and then you’re screwed (and embarrassed)

1. Credit account are closed without a specific reason being given. (Banks have an obligation to give you a reason).

2. Debit card/checking account fraud. There’s a federal law specifically protecting consumers in those cases.

3. Credit card/. Again, a specific federal law for these cases.

What’s noteworthy for each one of these violations, or, more accurately, for each one of these causes of action, is that there is a right to recover attorneys fees. And whenever you have that, then the consumer has an opportunity to find a lawyer who will forgo any payment unless, and until, there is a recovery. That’s how I pursue the vast majority of my cases. I even cover the filing fee for the consumer.

So when I say consumers need to sue their banks, and they get this response of “well they can’t afford a lawyer,“ i’m pretty sure they can afford free. but this pessimistic mindset seems to have taken hold. And I’d like to try and undo it.