I believe the directly-to-suit collection strategies that I occasionally read about will not work in the long run and even when they do, for only a select few clients. In collections, suit is sometimes a necessary remedy. But not the only remedy and shouldn’t be the first.

Why should suit be avoided?

1. The cost of litigation may not be practical.
2. A contested case may require a Plaintiff’s representative to appear in court.
3. A judgment may prove a hollow victory if the defendant has no assets.
4. (in some contested cases) it may trigger a counter-suit.

Further, a collector has the training, experience, incentive and the technological tools to effect collection (most reputable collection agencies never charge a fee unless they collect.) He must move the debtor to a resolution in the quickest possible time for the collection to be profitable for his office (an attorney’s overhead usually makes it unprofitable to handle balances under a few thousand dollars, or to pursue disputes, or to monitor part payers).