Photo of Laura C. Baucus

Laura Baucus is a results-oriented litigator and business attorney with experience delivering consistent results to clients in the automotive, aerospace, manufacturing and financial services industries. Ms. Baucus has worked both as outside counsel and as seconded in-house counsel. She is the Director of Dykema’s 140+ attorney Automotive Industry Group, the immediate past Leader of the firm’s Financial Services Litigation Practice, a Leader in Dykema’s COVID-19 Task-Force, the originator of the firm’s Supply Chain Group, the Manager of a firm OEM client-service team, and the immediate past Manager of the firm’s largest Michigan office.

Ms. Baucus regularly counsels clients on force majeure and related contract performance options. Her litigation practice focuses on procurement and supply chain, recalls, warranty and cost recovery, contract termination, tooling recovery, Uniform Commercial Code issues, and financial services.  Her contract practice includes negotiating and drafting supply contracts and other commercial agreements for automotive and other manufacturing companies, including terms and conditions. Ms. Baucus also manages national portfolios of lawsuits for some of the nation’s largest residential mortgage servicers.

In a closely monitored case, the U.S. Supreme Court today upheld the restriction on robocalls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) of 1991 but struck the Act’s government debt-collection exclusion. Many followed this case, anticipating it would result in a fatal blow to the TCPA. But today’s opinion extinguished these hopes.

In response to consumer complaints, Congress passed the TCPA to prohibit robocalls to cell phones, among other things. 47 U.S.C. 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). In 2015, Congress amended the robocall restriction, carving out a new government-debt exception that allows robocalls made solely to collect a debt owed to or guaranteed by the United States. 129 Stat. 588.

In 2016, the plaintiffs, political and nonprofit organizations, filed a declaratory judgment action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, claiming that the TCPA (§227(b)(1)(A)(iii)) violated the First Amendment. Plaintiffs sought the ability to make political robocalls to cell phones. Invoking the First Amendment, plaintiffs argued that the 2015 government-debt exception unconstitutionally favored debt-collection speech over political and other speech, and asked the Court to invalidate the TCPA’s entire restriction on robocalls. The District Court held that the government-debt carve-out was content-based but withstood strict scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, invalidating the 2015 exception and holding that the content-based restriction did not survive strict scrutiny.
Continue Reading TCPA Protection Against Robocalls Upheld. Did the Supreme Court Sacrifice the Right of Free Speech For the Sake of Rescuing a Bad Statute?

This article originally appeared in the November 2018 edition of National Mortgage Professional Magazine.

In the fallout from the 2008 financial crisis, courts across the United States were inundated with litigation challenging the legitimacy of mortgages, notes, and the records purporting the transfer or assign them. Such claims included asserting that endorsements of promissory notes were not enforceable, claiming assignments of mortgages were executed without authority, and allegations that the note, mortgage, or associated disclosure documents were neither presented to nor signed by the borrowers. In recent years, as the economy appears to have improved, much of this litigation has died down. However, it does not take much imagination to assume that if and when the next economic downturn hits, some borrowers may again find themselves in default on their mortgage obligations, and in turn may seek to challenge the enforceability of those agreements. 
Continue Reading What’s Past is Prologue: Applying Lessons from the Financial Crisis to the Future of eMortgage and eNote Litigation