In his national practice dedicated to the financial services industry, John has shaped the law in numerous landmark cases that preserved and expanded the rights of financial services companies, including national banks, automobile lenders, fintech companies, collection agencies, debt buyers, mortgage lenders, creditors, and fellow lawyers.

Licensed to practice in 15 courts and jurisdictions across the country, John regularly serves as counsel nationwide, both as a lead lawyer and as a learned strategist for local counsel. He advises and counsels financial services industry clients on regulatory compliance, defends them in claims and litigation, and advises them on best practices to prevent legal action.

John also helps creditors navigate the Bankruptcy Code and courts and represents them to secure payments and collateral, make determinations for future services, and minimize preference liability.

National Authority on Debt Collection and Regulatory Compliance

John is a prominent commentator and thought leader on the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and state regulatory laws.

In his counsel to many of the nation’s leading financial services companies, John works collaboratively with clients on developing an efficient and cohesive national legal strategy. He offers proprietary knowledge of proven litigation tactics and opposing counsels’ strategies, a competitive advantage he has built during his more than two decades of counsel in the collection and debt industry.

John is on the steering committee of the Consumer Relations Consortium (CRC), a national organization of larger market participant creditors and financial services companies formed by industry executives who believe that a reasonable and knowledgeable voice is needed to address both issues and solutions. In his role with the CRC, John meets quarterly in Washington, D.C. with key federal regulators and consumer groups to effect positive change for all parties.

John offers analysis and insights to credit collection groups, including DBA International and ACA International, and speaks at annual conferences, retreats, and programs.

The Debt Collection Drill

John founded and co-hosts The Debt Collection Drill, a podcast and related blog (distributed by that provides ongoing intelligence for financial services professionals seeking detailed tactics on emerging issues in the credit industry. John discusses many of the same challenges and solutions he typically addresses and manages for clients, including:

  • Strategies for avoiding TCPA lawsuits
  • Preventing and defeating FDCPA claims
  • Seeking sanctions in FDCPA cases
  • Costly mistakes debt collectors should avoid
  • Debt collectors’ strategies for interacting with consumer lawyers
  • Effective collection agency crisis responses

Regulatory and Compliance

Because many regulations governing the debt industry have room for interpretation, maintaining a working relationship with the regulators who routinely interpret these regulations is a vital key to success.

John fosters robust relationships with numerous state and federal regulators. He meets frequently with federal regulators in Washington, D.C. and communicates with state collection agency regulators, who frequently seek the firm’s informal input on issues. Moss & Barnett clients benefit from John’s relationships with the regulators who enforce laws that are often open to broad and varying interpretations.

Litigation Defense

John represents debt collectors, debt buyers, creditors, and lawyers in lawsuits brought pursuant to the TCPA, FDCPA, the FCRA, and similar state statutes.
His financial services industry defense includes:

  • Telephone Consumer Protection Act
  • Fair Credit Reporting Act Defense
  • Fair Debt Collection Practices Act Defense
  • State and jurisdictional licensing requirements

John encourages his clients to be actively involved in crafting their case’s litigation strategy, which consistently leads to successful outcomes.

Reported Decisions

  • Roark v. Credit One Bank, 2018 WL 5921652 (D. Minn., 2018)
  • Remington v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2017 WL 1014994 (D. CT)
  • Bradford v. LVNV Funding, 3 F. Supp. 3d 708 (6th Cir. 2015)
  • Donaldson v. LVNV Funding, 2015 WL 1539607 (S.D. Ind. 2015)
  • Bradford v. LVNV, Docket 2:11-CV-291 (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 25, 2014)
  • White v. Sherman, 2013 WL 5936679 (E.D. Tenn., Nov. 4, 2013)
  • Robinson v. Sherman,2013 WL 3968446 (E.D. Tenn., July 31, 2013)
  • Ferris & Salter v. Thomson Reuters Corporation, 2012 WL 3815624 (D. Minn.)
  • Dumoulin v. Palisades Collection, LLC, 11-149 (Idaho Supreme Court)
  • Zigdon v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 2010 WL 1838637 (N.D. Ohio 2010) and 2010 WL 2332692 (N.D. Ohio 2010)
  • Brill v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 5825480 (D. Neb. 2010)
  • Lougee v. Ad Astra Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 2077178 (D. Colo. 2010)
  • Mack Financial Services v. Tim Flanigan Trucking, Inc., 2010 WL 234729 (D. Minn. 2010)
  • Jiminez v. Accounts Receivable Management, Inc., 2010 WL 5829206 (C.D. Cal. 2010)
  • Waite v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2010 WL 5209350 (M.D. Fla. 2010)
  • Vinton v. Certegy Check Services, 1:08-cv-881 (W.D. Mich. 2009)
  • Hollis v. Northland Group, Inc., 2009 WL 250075 (D. Minn. 2009)
  • Grim v. West Publishing Corp., 08-1264 (Berks County, PA 2008)
  • Hernandez v. Palisades, 3:06-CV-1382 (D. Conn. 2008)
  • Cerjaweski v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 2008 WL 3091318 (N.D. Ind. 2008)
  • Stampley v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 583 F. Supp. 2d 960 (N.D. Ohio 2008)
  • Sivak v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 3:06-CV-01400 (D. Conn. 2007)
  • Posso v. Asta Funding, Inc., 07-C-4024 (N.D. Ill. 2007)
  • Galbraith v. Resurgent Capital Services, 2006 WL 2990163 (E.D. Cal. 2006)
  • Jackson v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., 1:05-cv-023 (D. N.D. 2006) 
  • Perera v. Blue Ribbon et. al., CV-04-1668 (D. Oregon 2005) 
  • Malm v. Household Bank, 2004 WL 1559370 (D. Minn. 2004)
  • Richardson v. AllianceOne Receivables Management, 2004 WL 867732 (S.D. N.Y. 2004) 
  • Wiegand v. JNR Adjustment Co., 2002 WL 724456 (D. Minn. 2002)
  • Alexander v. Omega Management, 67 F. Supp. 2d. 1052 (D. Minn. 1999) 



William Mitchell College of Law, J.D.; cum laude

Marquette University, B.A., Journalism


  • Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan
  • U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota
  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

News & Insights


Speaking Engagements


Social Media

Moss & Barnett, John Rossman, and Mike Poncin are pleased to present the audio blog series, The Debt Collection Drill. John and Mike provide sage tips and ongoing intelligence for debt professionals. In the blog archive, you can review detailed tactics on emerging issues in the credit industry and their analysis and solutions to the challenges the collection industry faces daily. John and Mike invite your readership and comments.

The Debt Collection Drill

Moss & Barnett is pleased to announce the first of its monthly podcast series titled "The Debt Collection Drill" featuring shareholders John Rossman and Michael Poncin providing sage tips for improving collections and compliance.
  • In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast series, Moss & Barnett attorneys Aylix Jensen, Michael Etmund and John Rossman provide specific guidance on the circumstances in which a collection agency may legally delete all information previously furnished to a credit reporting agency, also known as a tradeline deletion. 

  • Regulation F contemplates debt collectors communicating with consumers using a scripted “limited content” voicemail message which contains the business name of the debt collector, but “does not indicate that the debt collector is in the debt collection business.”  While consumer advocates agree that this limited content message will be extremely beneficial to consumers, debt collectors must proceed cautiously with implementation to ensure full compliance with all requirements of the limited content message contained within Regulation F.


    In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman, Sarah Doerr and Brad Armstrong provide practical guidance for implementation of the Regulation F limited content message and the attorneys also examine the legal restrictions regarding the use of certain words in a collection agency name.  

  • A debt collector must verify the identity of a communication
    recipient to ensure a right-party contact while also avoiding a disclosure
    about the existence of the debt to a third-party. Thus, a debt collector
    must, when asked, provide meaningful information about the purpose of
    a telephone call to a third-party – even when the third-party refuses to
    identify herself – without disclosing that the call is an attempt to collect
    a debt.
    In the latest episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss &
    Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin are joined by attorney
    Aylix Jensen who elaborates on her recent, complete victory in Federal
    Court establishing that a debt collector did not violate the FDCPA by
    stating it was a “financial services company” calling regarding a
    “personal business matter” to an unidentified individual – the Plaintiff –
    who the Court identified as the correct “customer for the account.”

  • In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys discuss the recent, historic changes to the laws restricting debt collection and how agencies can comply.  

  • The CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules envision a much-needed update and modernization to many provisions in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  However, the CFPB’s proposed rules include a limit of the number of debt collection calls that may be made per week without regard to the REJECTION of call frequency limits by Congress.  Because our Congress considered and dismissed call frequency limits for debt collectors, the CFPB cannot implement such limits through rulemaking.

    In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, attorneys Mike Poncin and John Rossman re-enact (from official Congressional transcripts) portions of the April 4, 1977 debates in the United States House of Representatives regarding the FDCPA and specifically a then-proposed weekly limit on debt collection calls.  Members of Congress raised specific and detailed objections on the record about the Constitutionality of the call frequency limit proposal at that time and also concerns about false claims. 

  • Debt collectors defending against hyper-technical FDCPA lawsuits by consumer attorneys commonly ask the same question: “How could the consumer possibly have been harmed by this supposed violation of the FDCPA?”  The question is especially poignant when the purported FDCPA violation arises from a collection letter the consumer never read or from the language in the collection letter upon which the consumer never intended to rely.  Does the concept of “no harm, no foul” apply to the FDCPA?

    In this episode of the Debt Collection Drill podcast, Moss & Barnett attorneys John Rossman and Mike Poncin discuss the recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the Casillas matter dismissing an alleged hyper-technical FDCPA letter violation.  They also discuss the recent ruling by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal regarding interest and share thoughts on the CFPB’s proposed debt collection rules.


Professional Associations

  • Minnesota State Bar Association
  • Compliance chair, The Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA International) – Minnesota Members’ Attorney Program (MAP) (2013-2015)