Collection Assignment Valid.

A creditor and a creditor assignee reached an agreement whereby the assignee agreed to collect a debt and pay the creditor $5,000, $100 per month until the $5,000 was satisfied and 50 percent of the recovery. The trial court found the agreement to be void against public policy because it did not constitute a valid assignment of claims, but a joint venture whereby the creditor provided the causes of action and the assignee provided legal representation for the venture, and thus, violated Business and Professions Code §6125 which prohibits the unauthorized practice of law. The appellate court reversed stating the assignee’s “agreement to split with [the creditor] any recovery he obtained in prosecuting those claims did not undermine the validity of the assignment of legal title to those claims. Such arrangements are legal in collection cases and do not create an attorney-client relationship between the assignor and the assignor.  Fink v. Shemtov  (Cal. App. Fourth Dist., Div. 3; October 24, 2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 599.