Under the FDCPA, a debt collector, including a lawyer, is subject to the act only if it "regularly" collects consumer debt. By way of comparison, the federal Truth in Lending law requires disclosure of specified credit information, such as Annual Percentage Rate, from creditors who regularly extend consumer credit. But the Truth in Lending law provides a bright line definition of "regular" extension of credit: more than 25 times, or more than 5 times if secured by a dwelling, the preceding calendar year. The Fair Debt collection Practices Act provides no similar bright line standard. As a lawyer, can you be confident that you need not worry about the Fair Debt collection Practices Act because your collection activities are not "regular?"  Von Schmidt v. Kratter, 9 F. Supp. 2d 100 (D.Ct. Conn. 1997) suggests relevant considerations.  In that case, a law firm was found not to be regularly conducting consumer debt where, on average, only 6% of its new files over a two year period were debt collection matters and where those files generated less than 1% of the firm's gross revenue.