Connection lost
Server error
Federal Trade Commission v. Keith H. Gill Richard Murkey Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: The court affirmed that a credit repair business violated federal law by falsely promising to remove accurate negative information from credit reports and by illegally charging advance fees. The operators were permanently banned from the industry and ordered to pay over $1.3 million in consumer redress.
Legal Significance: This case is a key early interpretation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CRO Act), establishing that promising to remove accurate, non-obsolete information is a per se misleading practice and that the Act’s ban on advance fees is absolute until services are fully performed.
Federal Trade Commission v. Keith H. Gill Richard Murkey Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Defendants Keith Gill, an attorney, and Richard Murkey operated a credit repair business under the name of Gill’s law office. They advertised extensively through radio broadcasts and other media, representing that they could legally remove any type of negative information from a consumer’s credit report, including accurate and non-obsolete items like bankruptcies, tax liens, and judgments. Their method consisted of inundating credit reporting agencies (CRAs) with dispute letters, often containing false information, to exploit the CRAs’ 30-day reinvestigation deadline under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Defendants charged consumers advance fees, typically a 25-50% deposit, after an initial “free” consultation but before completing the promised services. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) brought an enforcement action, alleging violations of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CRO Act) and the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act). The district court granted summary judgment for the FTC, issuing a permanent injunction and ordering equitable monetary relief. Gill argued he was not liable because Murkey was an independent contractor, despite clients signing retainer agreements with Gill’s law firm and Gill admitting to supervisory authority.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the defendants violate the Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act by making misleading representations about their ability to remove accurate credit information and by charging fees before their services were fully performed?
Yes. The court affirmed summary judgment for the FTC, holding that the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectet
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the defendants violate the Credit Repair Organizations Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act by making misleading representations about their ability to remove accurate credit information and by charging fees before their services were fully performed?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the FTC's enforcement authority under the CRO Act, confirming Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.
Legal Rule
A violation of the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CRO Act), 15 U.S.C. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit's analysis focused on the plain language and purpose of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt i
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Ninth Circuit held that making broad promises to legally remove