The Law Offices of Harris & Zide is a California-only debt collection law firm founded in 1988 and based in South Pasadena. It files collection lawsuits on behalf of Bank of America, Barclays, Citibank, credit unions, and debt buyers. A federal court certified a class action against the firm in 2016 for failing to include required disclosures in its initial collection letters. If you have been served with a Harris & Zide lawsuit, you have 30 days to file a written response. Ignoring the lawsuit will result in a default judgment, which Harris & Zide can use to garnish your wages, levy your bank accounts, and place liens on your property.
Who Is the Law Office of Harris & Zide?
The Law Offices of Harris & Zide is a debt collection law firm founded in 1988 and headquartered in South Pasadena, California. Unlike national firms that operate across multiple states, Harris & Zide litigates exclusively in California. Its office is located at 1445 Huntington Drive, South Pasadena.
The firm is a California institution in the debt collection space, having operated for over 35 years. Despite its name, most of its employees are not licensed attorneys — the firm operates a high-volume collection model that relies on a small number of attorneys to sign off on a large caseload. If you receive a letter or summons from Harris & Zide, treat it as pre-litigation notice regardless of which individual signed it.
Note: some sources and consumer attorneys refer to Harris & Zide interchangeably with “Scott & Associates” — if you encounter that name in connection with a debt, verify the filing attorney and plaintiff carefully.
Who Does Harris & Zide Represent?
Harris & Zide represents both original creditors and debt buyers. Its known clients include Bank of America, Barclays Bank, Citibank, and various credit unions. It also represents debt purchasers. Because its client mix includes debt buyers, the documentation requirements under California Civil Code § 1788.52 — chain of title, original account agreement, complete statements — can apply depending on who the plaintiff in your case is.
The complaint will identify the plaintiff. Harris & Zide is the attorney — the plaintiff is the entity that claims to own the debt. Knowing whether the plaintiff is an original creditor or a debt buyer shapes your defense strategy.
Court History and FDCPA Violations
Harris & Zide has a documented record of FDCPA litigation in California federal courts.
Harper v. Law Office of Harris and Zide LLP, 2016 WL 2344194 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2016): A federal class action alleged that Harris & Zide violated FDCPA § 1692g(a)(4) by failing to include required disclosures in initial collection letters sent to California consumers on behalf of Bank of America, N.A. The case centered on whether the letters adequately informed consumers of their right to dispute the debt and obtain verification. The Northern District of California allowed the class action to proceed.
CFPB complaints: The CFPB complaint database contains multiple complaints against Harris & Zide, including allegations of filing suit without first validating the debt, attempting to collect debts not owed, threatening arrest or wage garnishment before obtaining a judgment, and providing fraudulent creditor contact information in collection letters. You can search current complaints at the CFPB complaint database.
Can Harris & Zide Sue You in California?
Yes — Harris & Zide litigates exclusively in California and files collection lawsuits in California Superior Court throughout the state.
Statute of Limitations
Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 337, the statute of limitations on a written contract — including credit card agreements — is four years from the date of default. If the debt is outside this window, you can raise the expired statute of limitations as a complete affirmative defense. Filing a lawsuit on a time-barred debt can itself be an FDCPA violation. Do not make any payment on a potentially time-barred debt without first understanding that even a partial payment can restart the clock.
Documentation and Standing
Whether Harris & Zide is suing on behalf of an original creditor or a debt buyer determines what documentation it must produce. If the plaintiff is a debt buyer, California Civil Code § 1788.52 requires the original account agreement, complete account statements, and a full chain of title. Even when representing an original creditor, Harris & Zide must authenticate its evidence at trial — and without a live witness who can testify to the account records, that evidence may be excludable as hearsay. Filing a response requires Harris & Zide to prove its case rather than relying on an uncontested default.
Attorney Involvement
Harris & Zide operates a high-volume practice in which most employees are not licensed attorneys. Under the FDCPA, a collection letter that implies meaningful attorney review — when no such review actually occurred — can be a misrepresentation in violation of § 1692e. If you receive a letter that appears to have been drafted or reviewed by counsel, document it. Whether that attorney actually reviewed your file is a factual question that can matter to your defense.
If You Are Sued
Do not ignore a lawsuit from Harris & Zide. If you fail to file a written response within 30 days of service, the court will enter a default judgment. With a judgment in hand, Harris & Zide can garnish your wages, levy your bank accounts, and place liens on your property — and the firm actively pursues post-judgment enforcement.
Filing a response changes the dynamic entirely. It forces Harris & Zide to produce and authenticate its documentation, opens the door to settlement at better terms, and prevents the automatic default the firm counts on in most of its cases. Reported settlements in Harris & Zide cases have come in at approximately 40–50% of the claimed balance when consumers retained counsel and filed a timely response.
Learn how to respond to a debt collection lawsuit in California →
Is Bankruptcy an Option?
If you are facing a Harris & Zide lawsuit — or dealing with a judgment they have already obtained — bankruptcy may be a viable option depending on your overall financial situation. Filing for bankruptcy triggers an automatic stay that immediately stops all collection activity, including active lawsuits, wage garnishment, and bank levies. Most unsecured consumer debt that Harris & Zide collects can be discharged in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Bankruptcy is not the right path for everyone. The decision depends on your income, assets, and the full scope of your debts. Consulting a bankruptcy attorney before a judgment is entered preserves the most options.
Settling with Harris & Zide
Settlement is generally possible with Harris & Zide at any stage of the litigation process. Because the firm represents both original creditors and debt buyers, its flexibility on settlement terms depends on the client. Debt buyers have more pricing room than original creditors. In reported cases, settlements at 40–50% of the claimed balance have been achieved — but those results came after a response was filed and defenses were identified.
Do not attempt to settle over the phone. Get all terms in writing before making any payment. The agreement must state that payment constitutes payment in full and address credit bureau reporting. Never pay on a potentially time-barred debt without first understanding the statute of limitations consequences.
Your Rights Under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act
Harris & Zide is a debt collector under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code § 1788 et seq. Under both statutes, Harris & Zide is prohibited from:
- Calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. your local time
- Using abusive, threatening, or harassing language
- Threatening arrest or wage garnishment before obtaining a court judgment — a documented complaint pattern for this firm
- Failing to include required disclosures in initial collection letters — the subject of a federal class action against the firm
- Filing suit without providing debt validation after a timely written request
- Making false or misleading representations about the debt or creditor
- Continuing collection activity after receiving a written cease communication request
- Filing suit on a time-barred debt
These protections do not enforce themselves. You must assert them — in writing, by certified mail. FDCPA violations may entitle you to up to $1,000 in statutory damages per violation, plus attorney fees and costs. Because Harris & Zide attorneys are licensed by the State Bar of California, conduct that violates the FDCPA may also constitute a professional responsibility violation reportable to the State Bar.
Debt Validation
If you receive a collection letter from Harris & Zide, you have the right under FDCPA § 1692g to request written verification of the debt within 30 days of the first written communication. Once you submit a written validation request, Harris & Zide must cease collection activity — including filing suit — until it provides verification. CFPB complaints against this firm include allegations that it filed suit after receiving a validation request without first responding. Send your request by certified mail, return receipt requested, and keep your tracking confirmation.
Your validation request should ask for: the name and address of the original creditor, the amount of the debt and a complete accounting of how it was calculated, the account number, and — if the plaintiff is a debt buyer — the complete chain of title showing ownership.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Harris & Zide a legitimate law firm?
Yes. The Law Offices of Harris & Zide is a legitimate California debt collection law firm founded in 1988 and based in South Pasadena. It is licensed to practice law in California and litigates exclusively in California courts.
Does Harris & Zide buy debt?
Generally no — Harris & Zide acts as collection counsel for its clients. However, it does represent debt buyers as well as original creditors. The plaintiff named in your lawsuit identifies who owns the debt. Harris & Zide is the attorney.
Why is Harris & Zide suing me?
Harris & Zide files suit on behalf of the creditor or debt buyer that owns your account. Earlier collection efforts were unsuccessful, and the account was referred to Harris & Zide for litigation.
How long do I have to respond to a Harris & Zide lawsuit in California?
You have 30 days from the date of service to file a written response with the court. If you do not respond, the court will enter a default judgment against you.
Can Harris & Zide garnish my wages?
Only after obtaining a court judgment. Harris & Zide cannot garnish wages or levy bank accounts without first filing a lawsuit, winning a judgment, and following California’s post-judgment enforcement procedures. CFPB complaints against the firm include allegations of threatening garnishment before a judgment was obtained — that is an FDCPA violation.
Has Harris & Zide violated the FDCPA?
Yes. A federal class action in the Northern District of California (Harper v. Law Office of Harris and Zide, 2016) alleged the firm failed to include required disclosures in initial collection letters sent on behalf of Bank of America, in violation of FDCPA § 1692g(a)(4). CFPB complaints also include allegations of filing suit without first providing debt validation.
What happens if I ignore a Harris & Zide lawsuit?
The court will enter a default judgment against you. Harris & Zide can then pursue wage garnishment, bank levies, and property liens without any further participation from you.
Can bankruptcy stop Harris & Zide?
Yes. Filing for bankruptcy triggers an automatic stay that immediately halts all collection activity, including lawsuits, wage garnishment, and bank levies. Most unsecured debt that Harris & Zide collects can be discharged in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Consult a bankruptcy attorney to determine whether this is the right option for your situation.
Legal References
- Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
- Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Civil Code § 1788 et seq.
- California Code of Civil Procedure § 337 (statute of limitations, written contracts)
- California Civil Code § 1788.52 (debt buyer documentation requirements)
- FDCPA § 1692g(a)(4) (required disclosures in initial collection communications)
- Harper v. Law Office of Harris and Zide LLP, 2016 WL 2344194 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2016)
- State Bar of California attorney search: calbar.ca.gov
- CFPB complaint database: consumerfinance.gov