Gurstel Law Firm — Who Are They and What Do They Want From Me?

Who Is Gurstel Law Firm?

Gurstel Law Firm P.C. is a debt collection law firm headquartered in Golden Valley, Minnesota, with offices across the United States. The firm was founded in 1997 and has grown to approximately 320 employees operating in Minnesota, Arizona, California, Iowa, Nebraska, Nevada, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Its California office is located in Fullerton.

The firm previously operated under the name Gurstel Chargo, P.A. — and in some states, particularly Nebraska, still uses the Gurstel Chargo name. If you receive a letter or summons from “Gurstel Chargo,” it is the same firm.

Gurstel’s primary business is debt collection. It acts as outside litigation counsel for banks, credit card issuers, auto lenders, student loan servicers, medical providers, and debt buyers. It does not limit itself to original creditors — it also represents debt buyers, meaning the documentation issues that affect debt buyer litigation can apply depending on who the plaintiff in your case actually is.

What Does Gurstel Law Firm Want From Me?

Gurstel wants a judgment. The firm is not a debt buyer — it does not own your debt. It represents the creditor or debt buyer that does, and its job is to file suit, obtain a court judgment, and then enforce that judgment through wage garnishment, bank levies, and property liens.

The plaintiff named on your summons is the entity that claims to own your account. Gurstel is the attorney. Once you understand that distinction, your response strategy becomes clearer: you are not fighting Gurstel, you are fighting the plaintiff’s ability to prove it owns a valid, enforceable debt.

Who Does Gurstel Represent?

Gurstel represents both original creditors and debt buyers. Its client base includes major banks, credit card issuers, auto lenders, student loan servicers, medical providers, and commercial creditors. When the plaintiff is a debt buyer, California Civil Code § 1788.52 imposes specific documentation requirements — including a chain of title and original account agreement — that Gurstel must satisfy at trial.

Court History and FDCPA Violations

Gurstel Law Firm and its predecessor Gurstel Chargo have accumulated a significant record of consumer protection litigation.

Micks v. Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., 365 F. Supp. 3d 961 (D. Minn. 2019): A federal court granted summary judgment against Gurstel, finding it violated the FDCPA by garnishing wages on a debt the consumer alleged had been discharged in bankruptcy. The court rejected Gurstel’s “bona fide error” defense and denied Gurstel’s motion for sanctions against the consumer’s counsel.

Class action — garnishment notices (W.D. Wis., 2017): A proposed class action alleged that Gurstel sent wage garnishment and collection notices that did not comply with FDCPA requirements — specifically, that the notices were contradictory and left consumers unable to determine the actual amount owed.

Borges v. Gurstel Law Firm, P.C. (D. Neb., 2018): A proposed class action alleged that Gurstel served pro se consumer defendants with requests for admissions containing misleading instructions designed to create implied admissions. The complaint alleged violations of FDCPA §§ 1692e, 1692e(5), 1692e(10), and 1692f.

FCRA class action (2018): A separate class action alleged Gurstel violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act in connection with its debt collection and credit reporting practices.

Disabled veteran incident (Arizona): A widely reported incident involved a Gurstel Chargo employee telling a disabled veteran — whose garnishment-exempt Social Security funds Gurstel had seized — that he “should have died” serving his country. The veteran filed suit. The incident drew attention to the firm’s supervision practices and the pressure placed on its attorneys to produce collectible judgments.

The CFPB complaint database contains numerous complaints against Gurstel, including allegations of collecting debts not owed, impersonating attorneys or government officials, and improper garnishment. You can search current complaints at the CFPB complaint database.

Can Gurstel Law Firm Sue You in California?

Yes. Gurstel has operated in California since at least 2010 and maintains a Fullerton office. It files collection lawsuits in California Superior Court on behalf of its creditor and debt buyer clients.

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 suit 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

Because Gurstel represents both original creditors and debt buyers, what documentation it must produce depends on the plaintiff. 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, Gurstel must authenticate its evidence at trial — and without a live witness, that evidence may be excludable. Filing a response forces Gurstel to prove its case rather than collecting on an uncontested default.

Bankruptcy-Discharged Debts

The Micks case is a reminder that Gurstel has attempted to collect — and garnish wages on — debts that consumers believed were discharged in bankruptcy. If you previously filed for bankruptcy and believe a debt was discharged, that is a complete defense. Document your discharge order and raise it immediately. Pursuing collection on a discharged debt violates the bankruptcy discharge injunction and may also be an FDCPA violation.

If You Are Sued

Do not ignore a lawsuit from Gurstel Law Firm. If you fail to file a written response within 30 days of service, the court will enter a default judgment. Once Gurstel has a judgment, it can garnish your wages, levy your bank accounts, and place liens on your property — and Gurstel is a firm that actively pursues these remedies.

Filing a response forces Gurstel to prove its case, opens the door to settlement on better terms, and gives you the opportunity to raise defenses including the statute of limitations, documentation failures, and any FDCPA violations committed during collection.

Learn how to respond to a debt collection lawsuit in California →

Is Bankruptcy an Option?

If you are facing a Gurstel lawsuit — or a judgment they have already obtained — bankruptcy may be a viable option depending on your overall financial situation. Filing triggers an automatic stay that immediately stops all collection activity, including active lawsuits, wage garnishment, and bank levies. Most unsecured consumer debt that Gurstel collects can be discharged in Chapter 7.

If Gurstel is pursuing a debt already discharged in a prior bankruptcy, you may have grounds to reopen your case and seek sanctions. Consult a bankruptcy attorney immediately.

Request a free consult →

Settling with Gurstel Law Firm

Settlement is generally possible with Gurstel at any stage of the litigation process. Because Gurstel represents both original creditors and debt buyers, its settlement flexibility depends on the client’s authorization. Debt buyers typically accept lower settlements because they acquired the account at a discount. Know who the plaintiff is before making any offer.

Filing a response first gives you leverage. All settlement agreements must be in writing, must state the payment constitutes full satisfaction of the debt, and must address credit bureau reporting. Never settle over the phone and never pay on a potentially time-barred debt without understanding the statute of limitations consequences.

Your Rights Under the FDCPA and Rosenthal Act

Gurstel Law Firm 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, Gurstel is prohibited from:

• Calling before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. your local time
• Using abusive, threatening, or harassing language — an area of documented concern for this firm
• Making false or misleading representations about the debt or your legal obligations
• Garnishing wages or levying accounts on a debt discharged in bankruptcy
• Sending garnishment notices that contradict each other or obscure the actual amount owed
• Serving discovery designed to mislead pro se consumers
• 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 Gurstel’s California attorneys are licensed by the State Bar of California, FDCPA violations may also constitute professional responsibility violations reportable to the State Bar.

Debt Validation

If you receive a collection letter from Gurstel Law Firm, 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, Gurstel must cease collection activity until it provides verification. Send your request by certified mail, return receipt requested.

Your validation request should ask for: the name and address of the original creditor, the amount of the debt and a complete accounting, the account number, and — if the plaintiff is a debt buyer — the complete chain of title. If you previously filed for bankruptcy, also ask for confirmation the debt was not discharged.

Frequently Asked Questions

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)
• Micks v. Gurstel Law Firm, P.C., 365 F. Supp. 3d 961 (D. Minn. 2019)
• State Bar of California attorney search: calbar.ca.gov
• CFPB complaint database: consumerfinance.gov