In Ayvazian v. The Moore Law Group, et al, (Case No. 2:12-CV-01506-ODW) 2012 WL 2411181 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (Order Granting Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP Rule 11) and Minasyan v. Creditors Financial Group, LLC, et al, (Case No. 2:12-CV-01864-ODW) 2012 WL 2328242 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (Order Granting Sanctions Pursuant to FRCP Rule 11), Judge Otis Wright held that neither a lawyer nor a law firm is a debt collector under Rosenthal FDCPA

A “debt collector” under the Rosenthal Act is “any person who, in the ordinary course of business, regularly, on behalf of himself or herself or others, engages in debt collection.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1788.2(c). Section 1788.2(c) expressly excludes “an attorney or counselor at law”; thus, “[a] creditor’s counsel retained for the purpose of collecting a debt is not a ‘debt collector’ within the meaning of the Rosenthal Act.” Owings v. Hunt & Henriques, No. 08cv1931-L(NLS), 2010 WL 3489342, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2010) (citing Carney v. Rotkin, Schmerin & McIntyre, 206 Cal. App. 3d 1513, 1518, 1526 (1988) (rejecting the contention that  section 1788.2(c) exempts attorneys but not law firms). TMLG is a law firm. Thus it is expressly exempted from liability under the Rosenthal Act. A sufficient inquiry into fact and the legal standards of each act would have clearly revealed this to Plaintiff.”

Ayvasian can be found here.