Gonzalez v. Kay No. 08-20544

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/08/08-20544-CV0.wpd.pdf

Letter on its face implied it was sent by an attorney. Disclaimer on the back indicated it was not sent by an attorney.  Order of dismissal under 12(b)(6) reversed and case remanded for trial.  Dissent objected to jury getting to decide any issue.  However, although content of letter was not in dispute, whether the letter would mislead a "least sophisticated consumer" would appear to be mixed question of law and fact, allowing jury to decide the issue.

Why send a letter saying "lawyer" on the front and "no lawyer" on the back anyway?  Seems per se deceptive.