Question on lawsuits

to clarify, if it says plaintiff: debt collector vs
defendant:consumer. The attorney is only named in other parts such as plaintiffs attorney.

If the plaintiff does have to show, and his attorney does also, Would the plaintiff have to ad hear to state collection laws, such as being licensed?

Me ain't a legal expert hence not in proper hold of your actual problem :( I am replying to this post to let you know that this board isn't dead. I'm sure that someone will shortly be around with an answer. However, I feel that little more explanation would add clarity to the situation.

If the claim is filed in the small claim court, then the hearing would be rather informal and no attorney is required. The judge will hear to both the plaintiff and claimant and will give the ruling. Hope this helps.

What I am referring to is a back door tactic. Attourneys in Massachusetts don't need to be licensed to collect debt. So the collection agencies file law suits as the plaintiff. There is another spot that say "plaintiffs attorney"....He would be 3rd party right? I am just wondering how someone Like LVNV funding would be able to be here for a trial when the are so far away. The hire attorney's in the same state as the debtor. But is he legally the plaintiff? Can the case go on without the original complainer?

The attorney can appear for the plaintif. That's part of what attorneys are for.

collection agencies are third party. Attorneys who collect debts regularly are also third party, and are bound by the fdcpa, just like CAs.

If the collection agency (who is not licensed to do business in your state) appears as the plaintiff it does not matter if they appear or not when it comes down to the fact that they are attempting to collect a debt (which is their line of business) in a state which they are not licensed to conduct business in. I would say it would still be an issue.