Practical AI, Law & Practice

Persuasion: How is Writing a Legal Brief Similar to Selling a Timeshare?

2024-05-16T17:48:00.001-04:00

There is no obvious direct similarity between writing a legal brief and selling a timeshare. A legal brief is a document prepared by lawyers to strategically explain the facts, legal arguments, and reasoning behind their position in a court case. On the other hand, selling a timeshare involves sales tactics and presentations to convince potential buyers to purchase a vacation property ownership interest. They seem like two entirely different activities with little in common. However, the mindsets of the lawyer and timeshare seller share similarities. Both use the same principles and techniques. The art of strategic persuasion in legal brief writing can be illustrated by comparison to timeshare sales as a framework for discussion.

The Purpose of Persuasion:

The primary goal of writing a legal brief and selling a timeshare is to persuade the audience. In the case of a legal brief, the writer aims to convince the judge or court to rule in favor of their client. This requires presenting a compelling argument supported by legal precedents, laws, and facts. A timeshare salesperson's goal is to persuade potential buyers. They want the buyers to purchase a shared ownership in a vacation property. They must highlight the benefits. Equally important, they must address concerns. They must create a perception that shows the value of the timeshare while also addressing any potential concerns the buyer may have, thus instilling confidence in the buyer's decision. A judge who aims to make the best decisions under the circumstances considers both sides of the argument. Lawyers must recognize that most decisions that judges make can go either way.

Structuring the Argument:

Both legal briefs and timeshare sales rely on a clear, organized structure. Good structure is an essential key to persuasive writing. A legal brief has an introduction that sets the stage. It has a statement of facts, a detailed argument, and a conclusion. The conclusion summarizes the key points and the desired outcome. Likewise, a timeshare sales pitch often starts with an introduction to build rapport. Then, it presents the benefits followed by a section addressing potential objections. Finally, it has a closing that seeks to secure the sale. This plan helps guide the audience through the argument. It leads them to the desired action.

Understanding the Audience:

Tailoring the message to the specific audience is crucial in both legal brief writing and timeshare sales. A legal brief must consider the court's past rulings. It must also consider its legal philosophy and procedural preferences. The brief must use this information to craft an argument that resonates with the judge. A timeshare salesperson must do the same. They must understand the buyers' needs, lifestyles, and concerns to customize their pitch well. They can do this by showing a deep understanding of the audience. It will help them build credibility and trust.

Emotional Appeal and Evidence:

While legal briefs primarily rely on logic and law, they can also leverage the power of empathy when appropriate. By evoking sympathy for the client or highlighting an injustice, a legal brief can effectively appeal to the court's sense of fairness. In timeshare sales, the use of emotional appeals is more pronounced. These pitches often paint a vivid picture of luxurious vacations and the creation of lifelong memories, tapping into the buyer's emotional desires. However, it's crucial to note that both legal briefs and timeshare pitches should back their claims with solid evidence. Legal briefs often cite past cases and laws, while timeshare sales may use testimonials and data to enhance their credibility.

Addressing Counterarguments:

Addressing counterarguments is not just a necessary part of legal brief writing and timeshare sales, it's a sign of mastery. A well-crafted legal brief acknowledges and counters potential weaknesses with strong legal reasoning. Similarly, a skilled timeshare salesperson is prepared to address common objections and concerns. This direct approach not only demonstrates the writer or salesperson's expertise, but also instills confidence in the audience, assuring them that all aspects have been thoroughly considered.

Conclusion:

The contexts and stakes differ a lot. But, writing a legal brief and selling a timeshare share some basic persuasion principles. Both need a clear audience understanding. They need a clear argument. It requires strategic evidence and emotion. They also need the skill to expect and address counterarguments. By mastering these techniques, legal brief writers can craft compelling arguments. They persuade judges, just as timeshare salespeople convince buyers to make a purchase. Ultimately, persuasion is at the heart of both. It shows the importance of good communication in achieving goals.

Unleashing the Power of AI to Write Legal Briefs Is Easier than You Might Think.

2024-05-01T12:11:00.004-04:00

The adage "garbage in - garbage out" applies to AI chatbots. The first widely available chatbot, ChatGPT 3.5, was trained by scraping information from the web. This led to some strange conversations and produced a justifiably skeptical public attitude. The lesson was clear. If you want sensible and accurate output from a chatbot, give it sensible and accurate information to work with.

After playing and experimenting with the more advanced 4.0 versions of ChatGPT and Anthropic's Claude, I was impressed by the chatbots' writing and reasoning abilities, and I decided to put AI's ability to write legal briefs to a real-world test. I extracted a motion to dismiss from the federal courts to use as an example.

Most motions and briefs in federal courts are conveniently available online through PACER. I first located a promising published opinion and backtracked the corresponding district court docket for a specific motion and brief.

Whalen v. Stryker Corp., 783 F. Supp. 2d 977 (2011) involved a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss by reason of a statute of limitation bar. This required the interpretation and application of Kentucky's discovery rule. I was able to download the complaint, answer, and the defendant's brief from PACER.

I first extracted the District Court's statement of facts of the case and created a text file.

Next, I extracted the defendant's MTD/SOL argument (there were other issues that I omitted) and created a text file.

Then, I created two legal authority files.. (1) A basic statement of the standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and (2) Kentucky authority on the SOL discovery rule, consisting of the statute and pertinent quotes from four Kentucky Supreme Court opinions.

Finally, I used the following chatbot prompt:

PROMPT
Assume the role of a senior litigation attorney. You have filed a civil products liability lawsuit in a Kentucky court seeking to recover damages suffered by your client, the plaintiff, from an implanted "pain pump."
The defendant's attorney has filed a motion to dismiss your complaint based on a claim that the plaintiff's court case was not filed within the one-year statute of limitations.
1. A full description of the facts of the case is contained in an attached text file.
2. Attached is a text file describing the legal standard for motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
3. Attached is a text file describing the defendant's legal argument to support the motion to dismiss.
4. I have attached a text file describing Kentucky law regarding the start date for a cause of action in relation to the statute of limitations.
<TASK> Please write a comprehensive, persuasive, and professional legal argument explaining why the court should deny the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Here is the resulting output from Caude 4.0.

MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Stryker Corporation's ("Stryker") motion to dismiss should be denied because Plaintiff Cheryl Whalen has properly stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Complaint was timely filed within one year of when Ms. Whalen discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, both her injury and that it may have been caused by Stryker's conduct. The discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until at least November 13, 2009 when the FDA first publicly revealed a potential association between pain pumps and chondrolysis. Ms. Whalen filed suit on November 11, 2010, within the one-year limitations period.

Furthermore, even if this Court finds that Ms. Whalen should have discovered her claim earlier through reasonable diligence, Stryker's fraudulent concealment of the risks associated with its pain pumps prevents it from asserting a limitations defense. For these reasons, explained further below, Stryker's motion must be denied.

II. ARGUMENT

A. The Discovery Rule Tolled the Limitations Period Until November 2009

Under Kentucky's discovery rule, a cause of action does not accrue until the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered (1) an injury and (2) that the injury may have been caused by the defendant's conduct. Fluke Corp. v. LeMaster, 306 S.W.3d 55, 60 (Ky. 2010). Here, Ms. Whalen has alleged that she was not aware, nor could she have reasonably discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that she had been injured by the Stryker pain pump until the FDA published its safety bulletin in November 2009 first revealing a potential link between pain pumps and chondrolysis. Compl. ¶ 19.

At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court must accept these allegations as true and view them in the light most favorable to Ms. Whalen. Hill v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Mich., 409 F.3d 710, 716 (6th Cir. 2005). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion may only be granted if the facts alleged definitively establish that the claim is untimely. Tomlinson v. Siehl, 459 S.W.2d 166, 167-68 (Ky. Ct. App. 1970). Stryker cannot meet this high burden.

Contrary to Stryker's arguments, the Complaint does not establish that Ms. Whalen should have discovered her claim earlier than November 2009 merely because she continued to have shoulder problems and seek treatment. Under Kentucky law, a patient's mere knowledge of an undesired medical outcome does not necessarily trigger the limitations clock, as the patient may reasonably attribute it to an unfortunate result of proficient care rather than negligence or a defective product, particularly given their lack of medical expertise. Harrison v. Valentini, 184 S.W.3d 521, 524 (Ky. 2005).

Here, the Complaint alleges that the first public disclosure of a potential association between pain pumps and chondrolysis did not occur until the FDA's November 2009 bulletin. Compl. ¶ 19. Prior to that time, Ms. Whalen, a layperson, had no reason to suspect that her continuing shoulder problems were the result of a defect in Stryker's medical device as opposed to an unavoidable surgical complication. Even if some inaccessible, highly technical medical literature hinted at a theoretical risk, that is not the type of knowledge that a patient can be expected to glean through "reasonable diligence." See, e.g., Louisville Trust Co. v. Johns-Manville Prods. Corp., 580 S.W.2d 497, 501 (Ky. 1979) (discovery rule protects plaintiffs in latent injury cases caused by exposure to harmful products). At minimum, it is a question of fact for the jury whether Ms. Whalen acted reasonably under the circumstances. See Wiseman v. Alliant Hosps., Inc., 37 S.W.3d 709, 712-13 (Ky. 2000).

Accepting the Complaint's allegations as true, as the Court must at this stage, the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until at least November 2009. Because Ms. Whalen filed suit in November 2010, her claims are timely.

B. Fraudulent Concealment Estops Stryker From Asserting a Limitations Defense

Even if the discovery rule did not apply, Stryker would be estopped from asserting a limitations defense based on the doctrine of fraudulent concealment. The Complaint alleges that Stryker knew or should have known about the link between its pain pumps and chondrolysis based on a "wealth of scientific information," yet concealed this risk while continuing to promote the pumps' use. Compl. ¶¶ 12, 20. If proven, these facts would establish the elements of fraudulent concealment: (1) Ms. Whalen's lack of knowledge of the facts giving rise to her claim; (2) her inability to obtain that knowledge by reasonable diligence; (3) Stryker's actions in concealing a known risk; and (4) Ms. Whalen's detrimental, reasonable reliance on Stryker's conduct. See Fluke, 306 S.W.3d at 62.

The self-serving argument that Stryker could not have concealed this risk because some "wealth of scientific information" was publicly available, Def.'s Mem. at 5, turns the Complaint's allegations on their head. Clearly, if Stryker was aware of this "wealth" of troubling data, as the Complaint alleges, it was in the best position to appreciate the risk and had a duty to disclose it rather than conceal it. It cannot avoid responsibility by arguing, in effect, that Ms. Whalen should have discovered what Stryker itself failed to disclose. These are quintessential factual issues not properly resolved on a motion to dismiss.

III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Stryker has failed to show that Ms. Whalen's claims are definitively time-barred on the face of the Complaint. The discovery rule and fraudulent concealment doctrine preclude dismissal based on the statute of limitations at this early pleading stage. The Court should, therefore, deny Stryker's motion to dismiss in its entirety.

85-second AI task description for busy lawyers - Merging an Answer with a Complaint

2024-04-24T12:55:00.002-04:00

85-second AI task description for busy lawyers - Merging an Answer with a Complaint

This video presents a nifty hack for lawyers who must match up a defendant's answers with the complaint's allegations . . . paragraph by paragraph. Since an answer rarely reproduces each of the complaint's allegations . . . it's not easy to see what's being admitted or denied,

We created a chatbot task to merge the admissions and denials of a defendant's answer with the corresponding allegations in the plaintiff's complaint. The output is a list with each allegation immediately followed by the defendant's answer.

This makes it much easier to identify the points of contention or agreement

First: Upload your Complaint and Answer PDF files to the Chatbot

Then: Enter the following chat prompt:

[Chatbot Task Prompt - BEGIN ]

The two attached PDF files are the plaintiff's complaint in a civil court case and the defendant's answer to the allegations of the complaint.

The purpose of this TASK is to combine the contents of the two files so that each of the plaintiff's allegations is immediately followed by the defendant's response to that allegation.

The text paragraphs in each document are numbered consecutively, and the numbered paragraphs in the answer correspond to the paragraph in the complaint with the same number.

The Defendant's answers either:

1 admit the truth of the allegation,

2 deny the allegation,

3 admit part and deny part of the allegation, or

4 claim lack of knowledge of the allegation.

STEP 1 - Extract the first paragraph from the plaintiff's complaint and add it to an output list with the identifier COMPLAINT, plus the paragraph number and the original text.

Step 2. Extract the corresponding numbered paragraph from the defendant's answer and add it to an output list with the identifier ANSWER, plus the paragraph number and the original text.

Repeat Steps 1 and 2 for each of the numbered paragraphs.

IGNORE page numbers.

IGNORE single lines of text that are not associated with numbered paragraphs.

If the document has a number sequence of 1 to 28 along the left margin, IGNORE those numbers.

temperature = 0

[END Task Prompt]

Plagiarism, AI, and the practice of law

2024-04-21T15:01:00.011-04:00

Full Disclosure: I make no claim to originality.

"What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun."
Ecclesiastes 1:9

This has all happened before,

It will all happen again.

Plagiarism is the act of using someone else's words or ideas without giving them credit. It can be intentional, like buying a paper online, or unintentional, like forgetting to include a source in a bibliography. Plagiarism is a severe charge in academia and professional settings and can result in consequences such as failing grades, academic probation, or expulsion. This post does not discuss the issue of using copyrighted works, with or without attribution.

Summary - Ethical Implications of Plagiarism in Legal Filings:

Whether plagiarism is an ethical breach in the legal profession is complex. Unlike academic papers, legal documents aim to persuade and are valued for their effectiveness rather than originality. Here, efficiency is often prioritized over novelty.

Some argue that using unattributed language from other sources in legal filings can be inherently deceptive, violating ethical rules against dishonest conduct. Cases like Iowa Supreme Court v. Cannon highlight the seriousness of these violations, describing extensive copying without attribution as "misrepresentation."

Conversely, the New York City Bar Association's Ethics Opinion 2018-3 argues that legal briefs are not expected to reflect original thought to the same extent as academic papers. Here, the value lies in the arguments' persuasiveness, not originality.

The Distinct Nature of Legal Writing:

Legal writing is distinctly different from academic writing. It does not aim to add new ideas to the discourse but to effectively argue a client's position using existing laws and precedents. As such, using established arguments and language is common and often necessary.

Different Sources, Different Standards:

The ethical considerations of copying depend on the nature of the copied material. Using language from published articles without attribution is viewed more seriously than using boilerplate legal language from previous briefs. The former involves depriving original authors of credit for their creative and intellectual work, which can impact their professional recognition and advancement.

The Risks of Over-Reliance on Copied Material:

While copying itself is not always an ethical violation, excessive reliance on unattributed material can indicate a lack of professionalism. It may suggest incompetence or a lack of diligence, as the copied material may not perfectly align with the case specifics, leading potentially to legal and ethical repercussions.

Key Issues:

The rapid development of artificial intelligence drafting tools in the legal world adds many novel considerations to explore.

There are differing perspectives on whether plagiarism by lawyers in legal filings should be considered an ethical violation. These are a few key issues:

1. Whether copying language from other sources without attribution in legal briefs and filings is inherently deceptive and dishonest conduct that violates ethical rules like Rule 8.4(c), which prohibits "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation."
2. Is legal writing fundamentally different from academic writing in terms of expectations around originality and attribution? Failing to cite sources, even for paraphrased ideas, is considered plagiarism in academia. However, legal briefs aim to persuade rather than present original ideas. Lawyers are obligated to prioritize efficiency for the client over original expression.
3. Should copying without attribution from different sources be treated differently ethically? Failing to cite language from published articles and judicial opinions may be more problematic than recycling language from one's prior work or that of other attorneys. Recognition for their influence is essential to an academic's career advancement. The number of times an academic's works are cited is a measure of an academic's influence. An attorney's prior briefs are not typically a source of professional recognition. A published law review article is different from a court pleading.
4. Whether attorney plagiarism, even if not an automatic ethical violation, should still be discouraged as it can demonstrate a lack of competence and diligence if done sloppily without tailoring the copied material to the facts at hand. It may violate other ethical rules beyond 8.4(c).
5. How does an attorney's use of AI-generated text relate to the issues of lawyer ethics and plagiarism?
6. How does recognizing and respecting the rights of another human's original work compare to using the output from an artificial intelligence tool? What are the moral dimensions of using AI servants?

While many courts and commentators have condemned extensive copying without attribution as plagiarism, there does not appear to be a clear consensus that it is always an ethical violation from a professional responsibility standpoint, at least not to the same degree as in academic writing — context matters. Efficiency is valued, and originality is not the ultimate goal. However, attribution is still a best practice and a way to avoid allegations of deception or incompetence. Careful use of limited quotes or paraphrasing key ideas, with citations when appropriate, threads the needle between efficiency and integrity. However, the verbatim copying of large sections of published works without attribution crosses an ethical line for many — the details and degree matter in making it rise to the level of an ethical breach.

Discussion:

1. Is copying language from other sources without attribution in legal briefs and filings inherently deceptive?

There are valid arguments on both sides of this issue, but I don't believe copying language without attribution in legal filings is inherently deceptive and an automatic violation of Rule 8.4(c) in all cases.

Those who argue it is inherently deceptive point to cases like United States v. Sypher, No. 3:09-CR-00085, 2011 WL 579156, at *3 n.4. when District Judge Charles R. Simpson III denied the defendant's posttrial motions seeking a new trial, the court criticized her lawyer for writing a brief that "appear[ed] to have cobbled much of his statement of the law governing ineffective assistance of counsel claims by cutting and pasting, without citation, from the Wikipedia web site. . . [S]uch cutting and pasting, without attribution," warned Judge Simpson, "is plagiarism."

According to the The Association Of The Bar Of The City Of New York Committee On Professional Ethics Formal Opinion 2018-3: Ethical Implications of Plagiarism in Court Filings:

"Rule 8.4(c) of the Rules provides that "[a] lawyer or law firm shall not: . . . engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation." Although, as detailed below, courts have invoked Rule 8.4(c) to discipline lawyers who plagiarize in academic settings, we recognize that litigation filings serve a different purpose. Unlike academic papers (or writing samples), which purport to reflect the author's original work and analysis, legal briefs are submitted to present an argument on behalf of a client, and their value derives from their persuasiveness, not from their originality of thought or expression. A lawyer's signature on a brief is not a representation of authorship, much less of sole authorship, but rather a commitment to take responsibility for the contentions in the brief and an implied representation that the brief is not frivolous. For these reasons, we conclude that copying from other writings without attribution in a litigation filing is not per se deceptive and therefore is not a per se violation of Rule 8.4(c)."

Litigation filings aim to advocate for the client's position as effectively and efficiently as possible. Reusing tried-and-true arguments, even verbatim, can serve those goals. While citations are recommended, a brief is not held out as an original academic work such that the absence of citations is inherently deceptive."

That said, context matters greatly. Directly copying significant passages from published opinions and articles without attribution is more problematic than reusing boilerplate from one's prior briefs. And even where not deceptive, sloppy copying without tailoring the text can violate ethical duties of competence and diligence.

Prudent attorneys should use unattributed copying carefully and thoughtfully. Paraphrasing key concepts in one's own words and limiting direct quotations is advisable. Including citations, especially to published works, avoids accusations of impropriety. But incidental copying alone is not an automatic ethics breach rising to the level of dishonesty and deceit.

The goals and conventions of legal advocacy mean plagiarism standards diverge somewhat from academia. However, attorneys must still balance efficiency against their duties of integrity and professionalism. Exercising reasonable discretion in the manner and degree of copying is essential.

2. Is legal writing fundamentally different from academic writing in terms of expectations around originality and attribution?

Yes, legal writing fundamentally differs from academic writing in terms of expectations of originality and attribution. The core purpose and audience for each type of writing are distinct, leading to different conventions.

Academic writing, such as scholarly articles and student papers, is designed to contribute original ideas, insights, and analysis to the collective body of knowledge on a topic. Proper attribution is essential to give credit to other scholars' work that the writer is building upon. Presenting others' ideas as one's own is considered plagiarism. Originality is highly prized.

In contrast, the goal of legal writing in litigation filings is to persuade the court to rule in favor of one's client. Judges are not looking for original ideas. Indeed, they are mainly interested in what other judges have said on an issue. Lawyers provide clear and compelling arguments for why the law supports the advocated outcome without distorting what appellate courts have said. Citing, quoting, and paraphrasing precedents balance useful explanation and argumentation against injecting confusion with unnecessary details.

Efficiency and effectiveness are key considerations. Clients prefer to avoid paying for attorneys to reinvent the wheel. Reusing arguments that have succeeded before, whether from the attorney's prior briefs or exemplar motions drafted by others, is an established practice. Even judges recycle language from briefs in their opinions.

Some unique features of legal writing include:

- There is no expectation that a brief represents solely the original work of the signing attorney rather than a collaborative effort.
- Frequent use of boilerplate language and accepted legal terms of art.
- Excerpting key statutory and rule provisions, often without quotation marks.
- Heavy reliance on legal precedent, which necessitates restating courts' prior reasoning.
- Use of standard forms and templates for routine filings.

So, while in academia, copying a sentence without putting it in quotes and citing the source would be plagiarism, in legal briefs, it may not raise an eyebrow, especially if the source is another brief rather than a treatise or article. That doesn't make extensive copying a best practice, as courts have criticized it as sloppy, misleading, or sanctionable. Be careful, and limit the use of unattributed quotes, and avoid wholesale copying.

However, the fundamental difference is that legal writing is more accepting of copying to achieve a functional purpose efficiently, whereas academic writing demands original analysis and scrupulous attribution to reflect individual contributions to scholarship honestly. The plagiarism standards reasonably differ between the two contexts.

3. Should copying without attribution from different sources be treated differently from an ethical perspective? Citing language from published articles and judicial opinions seems more problematic than recycling language from one's prior work or that of other attorneys.

The type of source material being copied without attribution is an essential factor in assessing whether the practice is unethical from a professional responsibility standpoint. There are stronger arguments that copying published works without citation is deceptive and unethical than recycling language from practitioners' prior briefing.

When an attorney copies text from a treatise, law review article, or other published secondary source without citing that source, there is a colorable argument that such conduct is dishonest and prejudicial to the original author. Legal scholars and analysts publish their works not just for direct compensation from the publisher but also to spread their ideas and gain recognition as thought leaders. Being cited in briefs and judicial opinions measures the influence and impact of their scholarship.

If their published analyses are copied into briefs without attribution, the original authors may be deprived of that recognition. The court and opposing counsel will be unaware of the provenance of those legal arguments and unable to acknowledge the scholar's contribution, even if they find it persuasive. Over time, uncited copying of published works could rob deserving authors of the reputational credit and influence they have earned while diminishing the brief's perceived originality and integrity.

Extensively quoting judicial opinions without citing them raises additional systemic concerns beyond harm to individual judges. Attorneys have a duty to bring relevant caselaw to the court's attention so it can assess the weight of authority and make fully informed decisions. Hiding the source of statements of law by omitting citations to prior opinions could allow inconsistent or aberrant rulings to propagate unchecked.

In contrast, copying portions of briefs previously filed by the attorney or others at their firm implicates less pressing ethical concerns. The client in the prior matter received the full benefit of that original work. Unlike treatise authors, brief writers are directly compensated by their clients at the time rather than relying on reputational credit.

However, judicial opinions and secondary sources generally present the strongest case for ethical impropriety in unattributed copying. The countervailing considerations of author recognition, systemic integrity, and intellectual property lessen with prior briefs, especially if from the same firm.

Ethically, best practices remain to use direct quotations sparingly, paraphrase concepts in one's own words where possible while citing sources, and avoid verbatim copying of more than a couple paragraphs, even from briefs, without attribution. A measured, sparing approach to copying strikes the best balance between efficiency and integrity. However, as a matter of degree, failing to cite published scholarship and caselaw is the most indefensible from an ethics perspective.

4. Even if not an automatic ethical violation, should attorney plagiarism be discouraged?

Absolutely. Even if it does not always rise to the level of an ethics violation under Rule 8.4(c) 's prohibition on dishonesty and deceit, attorney plagiarism should still be strongly discouraged as a best practice. Excessive verbatim copying of source material without attribution in briefs can violate several ethical duties attorneys owe to their clients, the courts, and the profession.

First and foremost, an attorney submitting a brief filled with conclusory statements of law or boilerplate analysis copied from other sources, without care to tailor the authorities and arguments to the specific facts and issues of the case, is likely not providing competent representation. The duty of competence under ABA Model Rule 1.1 and state equivalents requires the "legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." A cut-and-paste brief that fails to apply the law to the client's unique circumstances falls short of that standard.

Mindlessly block-quoting treatises or opinions without examining how the principles apply to the case also demonstrates a lack of reasonable diligence and competence in representing the client, violating Rule 1.3. Sloppy copying bespeaks an eleventh-hour rush job rather than the considered analysis and client-centered advocacy ethical rules demand.

Relatedly, a pasted-together, inapposite brief may become a frivolous filing if the attorney has yet to independently verify that the arguments are factually and legally supported for this case. Rule 3.1 bars asserting issues without a non-frivolous basis in law and fact. An attorney must refrain from delegating the core duty to assess the merits of a motion or opposition by uncritically copying others' writing.

Slipshod plagiarism also displays a troubling lack of candor to the tribunal under Rule 3.3. The court deserves better than a brief stitched together from mismatched pieces of other works without cohesive, case-specific crafting. Even if not subjectively intending to deceive, the attorney who lifts passages wholesale is impliedly misrepresenting the level of effort and skill put into the filing.

Finally, such conduct may violate the catch-all provision of Rule 8.4(d) prohibiting conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Plagiarism that produces a deficient, legally erroneous brief ill-suited to the case impairs the court's ability to make sound, efficient decisions. Even if not guilty of fraud, the lawyer has still disserved the client, the court, and the disciplinary system's goal of fostering competence.

So, while the degree of copying, intent to deceive, and nature of the source material all factor into whether plagiarism constitutes an ethical violation, it is inadvisable attorney conduct that warrants disapproval. Pasting a patchwork of prior authority without focused analysis is detrimental to clients and degrades trust in advocates and the legal system. Careful, contextual use of properly attributed sources is how to uphold the profession's ethical standards.

5. Is the use of AI-generated text plagiarism?

Using AI-generated text by attorneys raises some novel ethical considerations that overlap with the plagiarism analysis but also implicate distinct concerns. On one level, an attorney's use of AI drafting tools is just a more technologically advanced version of copying from prior sources. However, it also highlights the core duties of competence, candor, and independent professional judgment in new ways.

One threshold question is whether using AI-generated text without disclosure constitutes deception or misrepresentation under Rule 8.4(c). Is there an implied representation that a brief is the attorney's work such that passing off AI writing as one's own is dishonest? The answer may depend on how courts and clients perceive the technology.

If AI is viewed as a sophisticated tool for attorneys to efficiently generate routine language akin to a form book or automated template, then disclosure may not be expected. However, non-disclosure could be misleading if AI is seen more as an independent source of legal analysis, such that the attorney appears to represent the AI's reasoning as their original thoughts.

The counterargument is that clients and courts only expect the attorney to endorse the final work product rather than vouch for its precise drafting method. Under this view, if the attorney carefully reviews and takes responsibility for the AI-generated text, ensuring it is accurate, applicable, and well-argued, then using AI is not inherently deceptive, even without disclosure. The result should matter more than the process.

However, even if it does not amount to misrepresentation, over-reliance on AI could still compromise an attorney's duties of competence and diligence under Rules 1.1 and 1.3. An attorney cannot unthinkingly cut and paste AI output without manually verifying that it correctly applies the law to the unique facts and issues of the case. The attorney must remain actively engaged to ensure the AI output accurately reflects key arguments and authorities.

Rote copying AI-generated briefs without tailoring them to the case at hand could also yield frivolous or legally erroneous filings violating Rule 3.1. The attorney must still independently analyze whether the AI output is supported by a non-frivolous basis in law and fact for the specific matter. AI is not a panacea absolving the attorney of the duty to exercise professional judgment.

Overdependence on AI violates Rule 2.1's directive that attorneys render candid, independent advice to clients. If an AI brief is generated without meaningful attorney review, it may not reflect the attorney's professional judgment and best counsel. An attorney cannot delegate the core functions of legal analysis and client-centered advocacy to AI.

6. There are significant moral and philosophical differences between using the original work of a human author versus AI-generated text when it comes to plagiarism.

A core element of why plagiarism is unethical is that it fails to give credit and respect to the original human creator of the work. When we use someone else's writing or ideas without attribution, we steal the fruits of their mental labor and creative expression. There's a strong argument that humans have a fundamental right to recognition for their original intellectual contributions. To copy it and pass it off as one's own violates the autonomy and dignity of the human author.

Moreover, uncredited copying of human work can cause tangible harm by depriving the original author of the reputational benefit and influence they deserve. For example, a scholar whose analysis is used in legal briefs without citation loses out on the professional esteem, recognition, and career advancement that would flow from acknowledging their impact.

In contrast, the moral calculus is murkier with AI-generated text. Artificial intelligence does not have any claim to autonomy or originality. In one sense, generative AI is systematic plagiarism and paraphrasing. No sentient being is harmed or disrespected if its work is copied without credit.

There is still an obligation to disclose the use of AI, not out of respect for the AI itself, but for transparency to the audience. People may feel deceived if they falsely assume writing is the original work of the human presenting it when AI generates it. There could be a "right to know" if a brief or article was written by a machine, even if the machine itself does not have moral rights.

However, if we view AI as a tool that attorneys and authors use to generate writing more efficiently, then the need for disclosure is ambiguous. We do not expect a disclaimer every time a word processor with grammar and style assistance is used. With more advanced AI, the line between tool and autonomous originator blurs.

Arguably, as long as the human author carefully reviews, edits, and takes ultimate responsibility for the AI-generated text, they are making it their own original work in a meaningful sense. AI is a cognitive aid that helps produce writing, but humans must still apply significant judgment and editorial discretion.

That said, the human vs. AI distinction does matter for plagiarism on a gut level of ethics and social mores, even if it does not always rise to concrete harm. Copying the work of a feeling, thinking humans without crediting them feels viscerally wrong in a way that utilizing AI text does not. We intuit the human author's moral desert for recognition.

Best practices still require disclosure of the use of AI in generating text presented as one's own out of respect for the audience, if not the AI. But it occupies a different, more ambiguous moral terrain than copying a human's work. The offense to dignity and desert is more attenuated.

Ethically, using "AI servants" implicates fundamental questions of autonomy and moral status that we are only beginning to grapple with as a society. The ethics are far from settled. We can generally utilize AI-generated text with a clearer conscience than uncredited human-written material as long as we are transparent and take ultimate responsibility for the output. The key is to use AI as an aid but not abdicate human judgment and discretion.

Appropriately used as a drafting aid, AI can be an ethical, efficient tool for attorneys. But it cannot substitute for an attorney's professional responsibilities to provide competent, well-reasoned representation. Attorneys must remain hands-on to review, refine, and take responsibility for AI-assisted work product. Proactively informing clients that AI is being utilized may be advisable for transparency.

As with plagiarism, AI can be a valuable resource if used thoughtfully but an unethical crutch if relied on recklessly. The fundamental duties of diligence, competence, and independent judgment remain paramount. Attorneys should embrace technological aids as complements to, not replacements for, their professional obligations. Keeping AI use within these ethical boundaries is critical.

Conclusion

The issue of plagiarism in legal practice does not have a one-size-fits-all answer. Legal professionals must balance efficiency with integrity, use citations appropriately, and tailor arguments to the specific context of each case. While the standards for plagiarism in legal settings differ from those in academic ones, maintaining honesty and professionalism remains paramount.

Practical Legal Prompt Engineering: A Guide

2024-04-20T18:21:00.008-04:00

What is Legal Prompt Engineering?

Legal prompt engineering involves tailoring your questions to get the best possible answers from AI tools. It requires experimenting with different terms and instructions to understand which yields the most useful responses. The better your prompts, the more accurate and relevant the information you receive, helping lawyers automate routine tasks more effectively and safely.

Why is it important?

Practical prompt engineering significantly improves the responses from AI tools, like ChatGPT and Bard, by ensuring they understand the context of your questions. Clarity leads to more accurate answers and reduces the chance of irrelevant or incorrect responses. For lawyers, mastering this skill means relying on AI for help with routine tasks while minimizing risks.

Role of a Legal Prompt Engineer

A legal prompt engineer specializes in creating and refining these questions to optimize the use of AI in legal settings. They work to make AI tools more useful for lawyers by ensuring that prompts are straightforward, contextually appropriate, and ethically sound. While the role is emerging in legal circles, its importance grows as more firms integrate AI into their daily operations.

Do You Need a Legal Prompt Engineer?

Not necessarily. Lawyers possess the critical thinking and problem-solving skills needed to develop effective prompts. Since they are familiar with legal language and concepts, they can create their prompts without needing a specialized engineer.

How to Effectively Engineer Prompts as a Lawyer

Define Your Objectives: Start by clearly stating what you want to achieve with your AI interaction. Your goal might be gathering research, drafting documents, or analyzing cases.
Use Precise Language: Avoid ambiguity. Use clear, specific legal terms that match the context of your task to guide the AI accurately.
Provide Context: The more background you give, the more tailored and accurate the AI's response will be. Include relevant laws, jurisdictions, and case specifics.
Specify Output Format: If you need the information in a particular format (like a memo or contract clause), mention this in your prompt to get results that are ready to use.
Highlight Key Points: Emphasize crucial arguments or issues to ensure they are not overlooked in the AI's responses.
Iterate: Prompt engineering is a skill honed through practice. Based on the responses, refine your questions and experiment with different phrasings and contexts.
Learn Responsible AI Use: Be aware of potential risks like data confidentiality. Set safeguards to prevent misuse of the information you provide to AI tools.

Getting Started with Legal Prompt Engineering

Legal prompt engineering is a powerful skill for leveraging AI in legal practice. You don't need to hire someone to reap the benefits; you can develop this expertise through practice and training. By taking courses or experimenting with your prompts, you can enhance how you use AI and prepare for future advancements in legal technology.

A tested strategy for AI-drafted interrogatories

2024-04-18T21:00:00.004-04:00

A strategy for AI-drafted interrogatories

1. Create a PDF file containing the relevant court rules relating to discovery and interrogatories. In federal court, that would include the general rules of discovery and mandatory disclosures in FRCP Rule 26, the specific interrogatory rules of FRCP 33, and any relevant local rules.

2. Make copies of your case's complaint and answer PDF files, as amended. Place the copies in a working folder.

3. Create a PDF file containing a brief description of the essential legal elements for each of the plaintiff's COA and the defendant's affirmative defenses. Include on-point excerpts from relevant court decisions. The objective is to provide the AI chatbot an accurate working guide to the applicable legal and evidentiary issues. Pattern jury instructions are a good source to use if available.

4. Copy my "GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS.PDF" and "CONSIDERATIONS.PDF" to your working folder.

5. Combine all of these files into a single PDF file named "DIRECTIONS.PDF"

This combined file PDF will be uploaded as an attachment to your chatbot prompt.

Enter the following PROMPT:

temperature = 0
Assume the role of experienced senior law clerk and follow the instructions in the attached file "DIRECTIONS.PDF." Draft 30 rule-compliant interrogatories for use as discovery in the pending litigation arising from the Complaint and Answer contained in the DIRECTIONS.PDF file.
Assume the enclosed statement of applicable legal principles is correct and authoritative for this jurisdiction. Write in a clear, concise, unambiguous, and professional business style without legalese or jargon. If you have any questions or uncertainty, please pause and ask for clarification.
When referencing the plaintiff or defendant, also include their proper name. Example: "Plaintiff, John Doe" or "Defendant XYZ, Inc."

-- oOo --

Generated output using Claude - Raw & Unedited

Jeanne Flieger V. Eastern Suffolk Board Of Cooperational Educational Services Docket No. 13-CV-6282 (EDNY 2013)

1. Identify all witnesses not previously disclosed pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(i) who have knowledge of the facts and circumstances surrounding Plaintiff Jeanne Flieger's employment, disabilities, requests for accommodation, the interactive process between the parties, and termination of Plaintiff Flieger's employment, as well as the defenses and denials of Defendant Eastern Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services ("BOCES"). For each witness, provide their full name, job title, last known address, and last known phone number, as well as a brief summary of their knowledge related to this case.

2. Identify all documents, electronically stored information, and tangible things not previously produced that relate to Plaintiff Flieger's employment, disabilities, requests for accommodation, the interactive process, termination of employment, or Defendant BOCES's defenses and denials. For each, state the date, author, recipients, subject matter, and current location.

3. State all reasons why Defendant BOCES contends Plaintiff Flieger was not a "qualified individual" under the ADA, identifying any "direct threat" Defendant BOCES alleges Plaintiff Flieger posed and the basis for that contention.

4. Describe in detail the "essential functions" of Plaintiff Flieger's job as a Teaching Assistant that Defendant BOCES contends Plaintiff Flieger could not perform with or without reasonable accommodation.

5. State the date(s) when Defendant BOCES first became aware of Plaintiff Flieger's disabilities and her need for accommodation related to those disabilities.

6. Identify each request for reasonable accommodation made by Plaintiff Flieger, including the date of each request, how it was conveyed to Defendant BOCES, and Defendant BOCES's response.

7. For each request for accommodation identified in response to the preceding interrogatory, state whether Defendant BOCES deemed the requested accommodation reasonable and the basis for that determination.

8. Describe all steps taken by Defendant BOCES to engage in the interactive process with Plaintiff Flieger to identify potential reasonable accommodations.

9. Identify each potential reasonable accommodation, if any, that Defendant BOCES considered or discussed for Plaintiff Flieger, as well as the basis for determining whether each potential accommodation was reasonable.

10. If Defendant BOCES contends that reassignment to a vacant position was not a reasonable accommodation for Plaintiff Flieger, state all reasons for that contention, identifying each vacant position that existed when Plaintiff Flieger requested accommodation.

11. If Defendant BOCES contends that reallocating or redistributing marginal job functions was not a reasonable accommodation, identify the specific job functions at issue and explain why reallocating or redistributing those functions was not reasonable.

12. If Defendant BOCES contends that modifying Plaintiff Flieger's work schedule was not a reasonable accommodation, identify the requested schedule modification and explain why it was not reasonable under the circumstances.

13. Identify any accommodations offered by Defendant BOCES to Plaintiff Flieger and state whether Plaintiff Flieger accepted or rejected each offered accommodation.

14. If Defendant BOCES claims that providing the accommodation(s) requested by Plaintiff Flieger would have caused an undue hardship, describe the proposed accommodation(s) and the specific undue hardship it would have caused to Defendant BOCES's operations.

15. Identify and describe in detail Defendant BOCES's policies, practices and procedures in effect from 2010 to present regarding requesting, considering, and providing reasonable accommodations under the ADA.

16. State whether Defendant BOCES had a procedure in place from 2010 to present that an employee was required to follow to request an accommodation for a disability, and if so, describe that procedure in detail.

17. Identify by name, title and dates of employment all employees of Defendant BOCES responsible for administering, implementing or making decisions regarding reasonable accommodation requests under the ADA from 2010 to present.

18. Describe any training provided to Defendant BOCES's management and supervisory personnel from 2010 to present regarding responsibilities and obligations under the ADA for providing reasonable accommodations.

19. Identify all other employees of Defendant BOCES from 2010 to present who requested accommodations for disabilities and state whether each request was granted or denied, as well as the accommodation requested.

20. State the date Plaintiff Flieger's employment ended with Defendant BOCES, whether she resigned, was terminated, or separated through some other means, and the reason(s) for the separation.

21. If Plaintiff Flieger's employment was terminated, identify the person(s) who made the decision to terminate and the stated reason(s) for termination at the time it occurred.

22. If Defendant BOCES claims Plaintiff Flieger did not experience an adverse employment action because of her disability, state in detail all reasons for this contention.

23. If Defendant BOCES claims Plaintiff Flieger's alleged disability did not substantially limit a major life activity, state the basis for this claim and identify the specific major life activities that Defendant BOCES alleges were not substantially limited.

24. If Defendant BOCES claims Plaintiff Flieger did not have a disability covered by the ADA, state in detail all reasons for this contention.

25. If Defendant BOCES claims Plaintiff Flieger failed to mitigate her damages, identify all potential comparable employment opportunities that Defendant BOCES alleges Plaintiff Flieger failed to pursue.

26. State whether Defendant BOCES has an in force disability anti-discrimination policy and if so, describe the policy and identify any personnel responsible for its implementation and enforcement.

27. If Defendant BOCES had knowledge of any potential discrimination or failure to accommodate Plaintiff Flieger because of her disabilities, describe the information or circumstances that provided Defendant BOCES such knowledge.

28. Identify any complaints, whether informal or formal, made by Plaintiff Flieger or other employees to Defendant BOCES regarding disability discrimination or failure to accommodate prior to the events giving rise to this lawsuit.

29. Identify any disciplinary actions or performance issues related to Plaintiff Flieger's attendance, conduct or work performance prior to her requests for accommodation.

30. State the amount of alleged damages, including any claims for lost wages, benefits, emotional distress or other compensatory damages, that Plaintiff Flieger claims and describe how the amount was calculated.

The Centaur as a Modern Lawyering Metaphor

2024-04-15T15:20:00.004-04:00

The Centaur as a Modern Lawyering Metaphor

This article draws from: Baker, James E. The Centaur's Dilemma: National Security Law for the Coming AI Revolution, Brookings Institution Press (2020)

The Mythological Centaur As A Modern Metaphor For The Relation Between Lawyers And Artificial Intelligence Technology

The mythological centaur, a creature from Greek mythology that combines the upper body of a human with the lower body and legs of a horse, offers a vivid metaphor for the relationship between lawyers and artificial intelligence (AI) technology in the modern era. This metaphor can be dissected into several layers, each illustrating aspects of this evolving relationship.

The concept of "Centaur lawyering" refers to a hybrid approach to legal practice that integrates human expertise with artificial intelligence (AI) and technology. This term draws on the metaphor of a centaur, a mythical creature with the upper body of a human and the lower body of a horse, symbolizing the combination of human intuition and judgment with the speed and data-processing capabilities of AI.

Integration of Two Distinct Natures

The centaur is neither fully human nor entirely horse, yet it embodies characteristics of both, suggesting a seamless integration of two very different natures. Similarly, in the legal profession, AI integrates with the distinctly human skills of lawyers. AI efficiently handles data-driven tasks such as document review, legal research, and case prediction, while the human lawyer provides judgment, ethical oversight, and client interaction. This hybrid model suggests that the most effective use of AI in law is not a replacement for human lawyers but an enhancement of their capabilities.

Balance of Strengths

The horse part of the centaur symbolizes strength, speed, and endurance, qualities that can be likened to the computational power, speed of data processing, and capacity for handling vast amounts of information that AI brings to the legal field. The human part symbolizes intelligence, reasoning, and moral considerations, reflecting lawyers' skills in critical thinking, argumentation, and ethical judgment. The centaur metaphor underscores the idea that the optimal use of AI in law finds a balance between these strengths, leveraging technology to handle large-scale, repetitive tasks while reserving uniquely human capabilities for strategy and decision-making.

Navigational Dexterity

Ancient stories often depict centaurs as creatures of great agility, able to navigate difficult terrain with ease. This characteristic can be translated into the legal landscape, where AI helps lawyers navigate complex legal databases, process intricate legal precedents, and analyze patterns in case law that might elude a human researcher. However, just as a centaur must learn to balance its dual nature to move gracefully, lawyers must learn to integrate AI tools into their practice effectively, ensuring that they complement rather than complicate their workflow.

Ethical and Control Dilemmas

Centaurs in mythology sometimes struggled to control their animalistic instincts. This issue of control is a metaphor for the ethical and control dilemmas presented by AI in law. As AI systems become more advanced, bias, transparency, and accountability issues arise. Lawyers, representing the human part of the centaur, must guide and control the use of AI to ensure that it adheres to ethical standards and does not perpetuate biases or make opaque decisions.

Conclusion

The centaur metaphor richly encapsulates lawyers' and AI technology's dynamic and dualistic relationship. It illustrates an integrated model where the human and technological components play to their strengths and contribute to a more efficient and effective legal practice. The balance and interaction between these elements highlight the potential enhancements AI offers to the legal field and the critical human oversight necessary to harness this technology responsibly.

Key Takeaways:

AI and lawyers should function in an integrated, complementary manner.

Effective use of AI in law balances computational power with human judgment and ethical considerations.

Lawyers must navigate ethical and operational challenges in implementing AI.

The metaphor suggests a dynamic, evolving relationship that, when managed well, enhances the capabilities and effectiveness of the legal profession.

AI Prompt engineering or instruction tuning for legal applications

2024-04-14T23:30:00.009-04:00

Prompt engineering or instruction tuning for legal applications like litigation, legal research, and document drafting involves carefully crafting prompts to guide large language models (LLMs) in generating relevant and accurate outputs

Here are some practical methods:

Defining Clear Objectives

Specify the precise task or goal you want the LLM to accomplish, such as summarizing case law, analyzing contracts, or drafting legal memos. This clarity helps tailor the prompt for optimal results.

Providing Context and Examples

Supply relevant context, background information, and examples to ground the LLM's understanding of the legal domain and task at hand. This could include case summaries, legal definitions, or sample documents.

Using Instruction Prompts

Craft detailed instruction prompts that break down the task into specific steps or guidelines for the LLM to follow. This can help ensure the output adheres to legal conventions and requirements.

Incorporating Domain-Specific Knowledge

Integrate domain-specific legal knowledge, such as legal terminology, citation formats, and precedents, into the prompt to enhance the LLM's understanding and output quality.

Iterative Refinement

Engage in an iterative process of prompt refinement, evaluating the LLM's outputs, and adjusting the prompts accordingly to improve accuracy and relevance over multiple iterations.

Fine-tuning on Legal Data

Fine-tune the LLM on a curated dataset of legal texts, such as case law, statutes, or legal documents, to adapt its language model to the specific legal domain and improve performance on legal tasks.

Prompt Chaining and Decomposition

Break down complex legal tasks into smaller subtasks and use prompt chaining or decomposition techniques to guide the LLM through each step, combining the outputs into a final result.

Not everything is suitable for automation. Some tasks are best done by hand.

Verify, verify, verify

By employing these prompt engineering methods, lawyers and legal professionals can more effectively leverage LLMs' capabilities for various legal applications while ensuring compliance with legal standards and requirements.

Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument - by Kurt M. Saunders

2024-04-13T19:42:00.004-04:00

Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument

Journal of Legal Education, volume 44, number 2, December 1994

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4384713

The text "Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument" by Kurt M. Saunders focuses on the intrinsic relationship between law and rhetoric, emphasizing the importance of understanding legal argumentation. The primary thesis is that classical and contemporary rhetorical theories provide essential frameworks for grasping the structure and process of legal arguments, which is crucial for effective legal advocacy.

Key Points of the Text:

Foundation in Rhetoric:
- Law and rhetoric share a historical and cultural heritage. This relationship suggests that insights from rhetorical theory are beneficial for legal practitioners and students.
Nature of Legal Arguments:
- Legal arguments are fundamentally about persuasion and are practical rather than theoretical. They aim to establish one claim as more reasonable compared to another, acknowledging the possibility of opposing arguments and the inherent ambiguity of language.
Theoretical Contributions:
- Stephen Toulmin and Chaim Perelman are highlighted for their contributions to the understanding of practical argumentation. They shift the focus from formal logic to practical arguments that reflect real-world reasoning.
Toulmin’s Model of Argumentation:
- Toulmin introduces a model that includes claims, grounds, warrants, backing, qualifiers, and rebuttals. This model is procedural and reflects the dynamic nature of legal reasoning, where the movement from accepted data, through a warrant, leads to a claim.
Perelman’s New Rhetoric:
- Perelman focuses on the role of rhetoric in shaping legal arguments by emphasizing the practical side of argumentation and the role of the audience in determining the persuasiveness of an argument.
Applications in Legal Education and Practice:
- Both Toulmin and Perelman’s theories are suggested as valuable for legal education and practice. They help in understanding and constructing legal arguments, particularly in the context of litigation and advocacy.
Practical Implications:
- The theories provide a foundation for teaching how to construct arguments at various stages of litigation and emphasize the heuristic nature of legal argumentation, which is about finding the most persuasive arguments based on the evidence and legal authority available.
Heuristics and Argument Construction:
- The text discusses heuristics from both Toulmin and Perelman that can be applied to the construction and analysis of arguments in legal settings, aiding students and practitioners in effective argumentation and advocacy.

In conclusion, the text advocates for a more explicit integration of rhetorical theory into legal education to improve the understanding and effectiveness of legal argumentation. This approach helps bridge the gap between theoretical concepts and practical application in legal settings, enhancing the persuasive and justificatory capabilities of legal professionals.

Developing a Mindset for Leveraging AI in Professional Growth

2024-04-12T23:49:00.002-04:00

Developing a Mindset for Leveraging AI in Professional Growth

(This was adapted from Enrico Schaefer's video Innovate and Amplify: AI Strategies for Success
https://youtu.be/s1qtIwh9vbo?si=kZgYTPB_2szmqFYo)

Introduction to Core Mindset Learning Method:

To effectively utilize AI as a tool to enhance our capabilities, it's essential to adopt specific mindsets. We can categorize these mindsets into different segments, each suited to particular situations, thus enabling us to harness AI effectively.

Strategic Integration Mindset:

This mindset focuses on aligning AI with our long-term career objectives. When learning about AI, we must consider what we aim to achieve professionally and how AI can be instrumental in reaching those goals.

The Strategic Integration Mindset involves aligning technology and AI with long-term career or business goals to enhance strategic planning and execution. This mindset isn't just about using AI for individual tasks but integrating it into an organization's or professional path's overarching strategy.

Law firms might use AI to automate document creation, legal research, and client communication, helping lawyers focus on complex legal strategies and client interactions. This strategic use of AI aligns with the long-term goals of increasing efficiency, reducing errors, enhancing client service, and maximizing attorney efficiency.

The Strategic Integration Mindset emphasizes using AI not as a standalone tool but as an integral part of achieving long-term objectives. By strategically deploying AI, professionals and organizations can enhance their capabilities, make better decisions, and position themselves for future success. This approach ensures that the investment in AI technology is directly linked to the overarching goals, providing a clear path to achieving them.

Innovative Exploration Mindset:

Adopting an innovative exploration mindset involves a readiness to rethink our professional practices and processes through AI. This approach isn't always straightforward—there might be failures and setbacks. The key is not to get discouraged but to learn from these experiences, adjust strategies, and persist. This mindset encourages experimenting with AI to uncover new applications, solutions, and workflows that were not practical considerations before the advent of AI.

The Innovative Exploration Mindset refers to the willingness and initiative to seek new methods, ideas, or applications, particularly in leveraging technology like AI. This mindset can be particularly transformative in the legal field, offering fresh approaches to traditional practices, enhancing efficiency, and fostering better outcomes. Here are some practical examples of how attorneys can apply this mindset in the practice of law and litigation:

1. Predictive Analytics

Using AI for predictive analytics in litigation involves analyzing past legal decisions to predict the outcomes of future cases. Lawyers with an innovative exploration mindset might use these tools to better advise their clients on the likelihood of success in litigation, thereby making more informed decisions about whether to settle or proceed to court.

2. Document Automation and Analysis

AI can automate the creation, review, and analysis of legal documents. Innovative lawyers might use these technologies to quickly draft standard contracts or sift through large volumes of discovery materials to identify relevant evidence. Using AI to assist with these tasks saves time, increases accuracy, and reduces the monotony of manual document handling.

3. Legal Research Automation

AI-driven legal research tools can analyze case law, statutes, and other legal materials faster than traditional methods. Lawyers who adopt this innovative approach can find relevant precedents and arguments more efficiently, enhancing their ability to construct effective case strategies.

4. Virtual Legal Assistants

AI-powered virtual assistants can help manage case files, schedule meetings, and remind attorneys of deadlines. Lawyers embracing innovative tools can improve their practice management, allowing them to focus more on case strategy and client interaction rather than administrative tasks.

5. Client Interaction and Engagement

Using AI tools to analyze client data can help lawyers better understand client needs and preferences, leading to more personalized service. Innovative lawyers might implement AI-driven platforms that track client interactions and feedback, enabling them to tailor their services to meet client expectations better and enhance client satisfaction.

6. E-Discovery Enhancements

AI applications in e-discovery allow for more efficient processing, review, and analysis of electronic data in litigation. Lawyers using these technologies can more effectively handle large datasets, identify relevant information quickly, and reduce the costs associated with manual review processes.

7. Dispute Resolution Platforms

Some innovative lawyers are exploring the use of AI in alternative dispute resolution, utilizing algorithms that can help mediate small-scale disputes without human intervention. This application could revolutionize resolving conflicts, offering faster and fairer solutions.

In these examples, the Innovative Exploration Mindset is about pushing the boundaries of traditional legal practices and embracing new technologies that can fundamentally change the delivery of legal work. Lawyers who adopt this mindset gain a competitive edge and drive the legal profession towards more efficient, client-focused, and responsive practices. This mindset is crucial in a rapidly evolving legal landscape, where staying ahead often depends on one's ability to innovate and adapt.

The Importance of Iterative Learning:

Iterative learning is critical when integrating AI into your work. Start each day with a strategic plan for your long-term goals and a willingness to explore and push boundaries with AI. Experimentation can reveal the most effective methods and techniques that one can leverage to enhance future tasks.

Iterative learning refers to a process of gaining knowledge or skills through repeated cycles of activity, reflection, and improvement. In the context of technology and AI, this means continuously experimenting with and refining systems based on feedback from previous iterations.

Here's a step-by-step breakdown of how iterative learning typically works:

Initiation: Start with a baseline approach or a preliminary idea of how to solve a problem or perform a task.

Implementation: Apply the initial idea in a practical setting to see how it works.

Evaluation: Assess the application results, identifying what worked well and what did not.

Refinement: Modify the approach based on feedback and the insights gained during evaluation.

Repetition: Repeat the cycle with the refined approach, continually improving the process with each iteration.

Iterative learning promotes adaptability and continuous improvement. It's particularly effective in processes that require dynamic responses to complex problems. Litigation is an example of such a dynamic process. Progressing from the pleading stage through discovery and toward trial or settlement involves continuing learning and re-evaluation. By iteratively testing and adjusting, individuals and teams can learn more deeply and develop solutions finely tuned to each case's specific needs and circumstances.

Likewise, this continuous trial, feedback, and refinement cycle is essential for mastering AI applications in your field.

The Importance of Iterative Learning in Adapting AI to Law and Litigation

1. Adapting to Evolving Legal Standards and Practices

Legal standards and practices are not static; they evolve in response to new legislation, judicial decisions, and societal changes. Iterative learning allows legal professionals to adjust AI systems continuously to align with current laws and ethical guidelines. This adaptation ensures that the technology remains relevant and compliant, safeguarding its utility in legal practice.

2. Enhancing Accuracy and Reliability

AI in the legal field often involves processing complex and nuanced information, from predicting case outcomes to analyzing legal documents. Iterative learning helps refine AI algorithms, enhancing their accuracy in understanding and interpreting legal texts. This iterative refinement is crucial because even minor errors can have significant legal implications.

3. Customization to Specific Legal Contexts

Different legal cases and contexts require different approaches. For instance, contract analysis in corporate law might need a different AI toolset than evidence analysis in criminal law. Iterative learning allows legal practitioners to tailor AI tools to the specific demands of various legal tasks and cases, improving the tool's effectiveness and efficiency.

4. Client-Centric Services

Iterative learning can improve the way lawyers interact with and serve their clients. It is necessary to refine AI tools over time to predict client needs better, automate routine communications, and provide more accurate and timely advice. This not only improves client satisfaction but also enhances the reputation and competitiveness of the legal practice.

5. Cost Efficiency

By adopting an iterative learning approach, law firms can reduce costs associated with manual processes. For example, iterative improvements in AI-powered document review can decrease the time lawyers spend on document analysis, which is often billable by hours. Reducing the time and resources spent on routine tasks can result in significant cost savings for the firm and its clients.

6. Competitive Advantage

In the competitive field of law, firms that can quickly adapt to and integrate new technologies often have a market advantage. Iterative learning ensures that AI tools are implemented and continuously improved, keeping the firm at the forefront of technology. This not only helps attract tech-savvy clients but also sets industry standards.

Iterative learning is vital when integrating AI into law and litigation because it ensures that the deployment of AI is not a one-time event but a continuous process of enhancement and refinement. It supports adapting AI tools to the highly specialized, dynamic, and sensitive nature of legal work, ensuring that these tools deliver maximum value while adhering to legal and ethical standards.

Customizing GPT Assistants for Efficiency:

Investing time in customizing and improving AI tools, particularly GPT assistants, can yield substantial benefits. By continuously updating and refining the prompts and processes these assistants use, you enhance their usefulness and efficiency for future tasks. This ongoing improvement gives you a competitive edge and increases the overall efficacy of your professional toolkit.

Conclusion:

Embracing these mindsets can transform how you interact with AI, turning it into a powerful ally in your professional development. By strategically integrating AI and continuously exploring innovative applications, you position yourself to stay ahead in your field and maximize the potential of AI-enhanced workflows.

Conversations with a robot: AI in the practice of law - April 11, 2024

2024-04-11T08:30:00.006-04:00

Sturgeon's law (or Sturgeon's revelation) is an adage stating "ninety percent of everything is crap". It was coined by Theodore Sturgeon, an American science fiction author and critic, and was inspired by his observation that, while science fiction was often derided for its low quality by critics, most works in other fields were low-quality, too, and so science fiction was thus no different.

Conversations with a robot: AI in the practice of law - 4/11/2024

How to go from zero to something.

Me: I need an email message to a group of lawyers regarding using artificial intelligence in the practice of law. Please give me a few suggested topics to write about.

ChatGPT:

Certainly! When addressing a group of lawyers regarding the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the practice of law, it's important to focus on topics that are both relevant and thought-provoking. Here are a few suggested topics you could consider for your email message:

Ethical Implications of AI in Legal Practice:
Discuss the ethical considerations and challenges that arise with the integration of AI in legal work, including confidentiality, privacy, and the potential for bias. Explore how AI can align with the legal profession's ethical standards.
AI and Legal Research:
Highlight how AI technologies can streamline legal research, improve accuracy, and save time by quickly analyzing large volumes of legal documents and case law to identify relevant precedents and arguments.
Automating Routine Legal Tasks:
Explain how AI can automate routine tasks such as document review, due diligence, contract analysis, and legal drafting, thereby freeing lawyers to focus on more complex and strategic aspects of their cases.
AI in Litigation Prediction and Analysis:
Discuss the potential of AI to predict litigation outcomes based on historical data and trends. This includes AI's role in analyzing judge's rulings, jury decisions, and the effectiveness of certain legal arguments.
Challenges and Limitations of AI in Law:
Address the limitations of current AI technologies in understanding the nuances and complexities of legal reasoning and the potential risks of over-reliance on AI for critical legal decisions.
The Future of Legal Jobs in the Age of AI:
Explore how AI is reshaping the legal profession and what it means for future legal jobs. Discuss how lawyers can adapt to the changing landscape by developing new skills that complement AI technologies.
Data Security and Protection in AI Tools:
With the increasing use of AI in law, discuss the importance of ensuring data security and protection, particularly when handling sensitive client information. Explore best practices for evaluating and selecting AI tools that prioritize data security.
Regulatory Considerations and Compliance:
Delve into the regulatory landscape surrounding the use of AI in legal practice, including compliance issues and how different jurisdictions are approaching the regulation of AI technologies in law.
Case Studies of AI Success in Legal Practices:
Share success stories and case studies of law firms or legal departments that have effectively integrated AI into their operations, highlighting the benefits and lessons learned.
Preparing for the Future: Education and Training in AI for Lawyers:
Discuss the importance of legal education in AI and how current and future lawyers can be trained to effectively use AI in their practice. This includes the integration of AI courses in law schools and continuing legal education (CLE) programs.
In your email, you might want to consider framing these topics as questions or prompts for discussion, encouraging recipients to share their thoughts, experiences, and predictions about the role of AI in the legal profession. This approach can foster a more engaging and interactive dialogue among the group.

Me: My audience consists of seasoned attorneys who have been practicing for twenty years or more and may feel intimidated by the changes posed by recent developments in AI. My friends may be worried about their ability to learn how to use new AI tools in the practice of law. I would like to reassure them of a simple strategy for them to adapt to a rapidly changing and uncertain professional environment.

ChatGPT: This message aims to validate the feelings of your colleagues, emphasize the value of their experience, and outline a practical approach to adapting to AI in a way that feels manageable and grounded in collaboration. By framing AI as a tool that enhances rather than replaces their expertise, you can help alleviate concerns and inspire a collective effort towards embracing change.

Subject: Embracing the Future Together: A Simple Strategy for Integrating AI into Our Practice
Dear Colleagues,
I hope this message finds you well. As we stand at the forefront of a rapidly evolving legal landscape, shaped significantly by advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), I understand the apprehension some of us may feel about this new frontier. The thought of integrating AI into our practices, after decades of honing our skills and mastering our craft, can seem daunting. However, I firmly believe that our wealth of experience positions us uniquely to leverage these changes, not only to enhance our practice but to continue setting the standard of excellence in our field.
Acknowledging Our Strengths
First and foremost, it's important to recognize that the core of our profession—our judgment, ethical considerations, and ability to advocate for our clients—remains unchanged. AI is a tool, one that we can wield to complement our deep understanding of the law, refine our strategies, and better serve our clients. Our expertise guides the use of this tool, ensuring that we maintain our commitment to justice and professional integrity.
A Simple Strategy for Adaptation
In light of these changes, I propose a straightforward, three-step strategy to help us embrace AI without feeling overwhelmed:
Continuous Learning and Curiosity: Dedicate a small, manageable portion of our time each week to learning about AI developments relevant to our practice areas. This can be as simple as reading articles, attending webinars, or participating in workshops designed for legal professionals. The goal is not to become AI experts overnight but to build our understanding gradually and consistently.
Collaboration and Sharing: Engage in discussions with peers who have experience with AI in their practices. By sharing insights and experiences, we can demystify AI together and explore practical ways to integrate it into our work. Let's leverage our collective knowledge and networks to support each other through this transition.
Strategic Implementation: Start small by identifying one or two areas of our practice where AI tools can make an immediate impact, such as legal research or document review. By focusing on specific, manageable applications, we can gain confidence in using AI technologies and recognize their benefits firsthand, without feeling the need to overhaul our entire practice at once.
Embracing Change Together
The journey into the future of law, with AI as a companion, does not diminish the value of the wisdom we've accumulated over the years. Instead, it offers us an opportunity to enhance our delivery of legal services, making our expertise even more impactful. As we navigate these changes together, let's remain open to the possibilities that AI brings, confident in our ability to adapt and thrive.
I am here to support you in this journey, and I welcome your thoughts, questions, and suggestions on how we can collectively approach the integration of AI into our practice.
Warm regards,
[Your Name]

Me: I wish to emphasize the possibility that the roll-out of AI technology has not favored large firms with deep pockets. All of the major players have embraced Open Source and easy accessibility. For all practical purposes, anyone can learn and experiment with AI for only the investment of time and effort.

Do you agree that this is true? Do large well-funded lawfirms have an advantage over small firms or solo practitioners when it comes to leveraging the benefits of AI in the practice of law?

ChatGPT: The advent of AI in the legal domain has indeed brought about a democratization of tools and resources that were previously accessible only to large, well-funded firms. The open-source movement and the proliferation of accessible AI technologies have leveled the playing field to a significant extent. This has allowed smaller firms and solo practitioners to experiment with and implement AI solutions with minimal financial investment, relying mostly on the investment of time and effort to learn and adapt these technologies for their practices.

Advantages for Large Firms
Resources for Customization and Integration: Large firms often have the financial resources to customize AI tools to fit their specific needs better and to integrate them seamlessly with their existing IT infrastructure. This customization can lead to more efficient workflows tailored to the firm's practice areas.
Scale of Implementation: The benefits of AI technologies, such as data analysis and pattern recognition, often increase with the scale of data they can access. Larger firms, handling more cases and data, may derive more significant insights and efficiencies from AI tools.
Training and Development: Large firms can afford to invest in training their staff and attorneys in new technologies and may even have in-house teams dedicated to exploring and implementing AI solutions.
Advantages for Small Firms and Solo Practitioners
Agility and Flexibility: Smaller firms and solo practitioners can be more agile in adopting new technologies. With shorter decision-making processes, they can experiment with and adopt innovative AI solutions more quickly than their larger counterparts.
Customized Solutions Without Heavy Investment: Thanks to open-source AI tools and platforms, smaller practices can access powerful resources without the need for significant investment. These tools can be adapted to their specific needs, allowing for personalized solutions that do not require extensive customization.
Niche Specialization: Smaller firms often specialize in niche areas of law, and AI can help them become even more proficient in these areas. By focusing on specific AI tools that enhance their specialization, they can compete effectively with larger firms.
The Reality of AI in Law
The reality is nuanced. While large firms may have advantages in terms of resources and scale, the open-source nature of AI development and the increasing availability of affordable, user-friendly AI tools have indeed democratized access to these technologies. Smaller firms and solo practitioners who are willing to invest time in learning and adapting AI can not only compete but also carve out unique advantages for themselves.
However, the key differentiator is not just access to technology but how effectively each firm or practitioner leverages AI to enhance their practice, improve client service, and streamline operations. The commitment to continuous learning, willingness to experiment, and strategic implementation of AI can enable any legal practice, regardless of size, to benefit from what AI has to offer.
Thus, while large firms have certain inherent advantages due to resources, the landscape of AI in law is surprisingly favorable to smaller practices willing to engage actively with these technologies. This dynamic creates a compelling argument for the inclusive potential of AI within the legal profession, offering both large and small entities the opportunity to enhance their practice through technology.

Me: Do you have any examples of using AI in Niche Specialization?

ChatGPT: Yes, AI has been effectively used in various niche specializations within the legal field, offering specialized tools that cater to the unique needs of these areas. Here are a few examples where AI has made significant inroads:

Intellectual Property Law
Patent Analysis and Searches: AI tools can analyze vast databases of patents to identify potential infringements, similarities, or opportunities for patent applications. These tools use natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning to understand complex technical descriptions and compare them across global patent databases, making the patent search and analysis process much more efficient.
Environmental Law
Regulatory Compliance Monitoring: AI systems can monitor and analyze environmental regulations across jurisdictions to ensure compliance. These systems can track changes in legislation and automatically evaluate a company's operations against the latest regulatory requirements, helping law firms specializing in environmental law provide up-to-date advice to their clients.
Criminal Law
Predictive Policing and Sentencing Analytics: Some tools are designed to analyze past arrest records, sentencing patterns, and other data to predict crime hotspots or potential future offenses. While controversial and subject to ethical scrutiny, these tools are being explored in some jurisdictions. Additionally, AI can assess sentencing trends and probabilities, aiding criminal defense attorneys in strategy development.
Family Law
Dispute Resolution Platforms: AI-driven platforms offer services like mediated settlements, leveraging algorithms to propose solutions based on historical data on dispute resolutions. These platforms can assist family law practitioners by providing data-driven insights into likely outcomes, facilitating more informed negotiations.
Health Law
Contract Analysis for Healthcare Compliance: AI tools specialized in contract analysis can help health law attorneys quickly review and ensure healthcare contracts comply with a constantly evolving regulatory landscape. This is particularly useful in areas like privacy regulations, patient rights, and insurance law.
Real Estate Law
Property Data Analysis: AI can aggregate and analyze property data, zoning laws, and market trends to assist in real estate transactions and litigation. For example, AI tools can predict property values, identify potential legal issues with property use, and streamline due diligence processes.
Immigration Law
Case Outcome Prediction: Some AI applications focus on analyzing previous immigration cases to predict the outcome of current applications based on patterns in the data. This can help immigration lawyers better prepare applications and manage client expectations.

These examples illustrate how AI is being tailored to specific legal niches, enhancing the ability of firms to offer specialized services. By leveraging AI, lawyers can gain insights from data that would be impossible to analyze manually, predict outcomes more accurately, and streamline processes, all of which can significantly benefit their practice and their clients.

Me: Do you have any examples of using AI in employment law?

ChatGP: Yes, AI is increasingly being used in the field of employment law, providing innovative solutions for both preventive measures and dispute resolution. Here are some ways in which AI is applied in this niche:

Compliance with Employment Laws
Automated Compliance Checks: AI tools can continuously monitor and analyze changes in employment laws and regulations across different jurisdictions to ensure that company policies remain compliant. This is especially valuable for businesses operating in multiple states or countries, where employment laws can vary significantly.
HR and Employment Decision Support
Bias Detection in Hiring Processes: AI algorithms can analyze job descriptions, recruitment materials, and hiring practices to identify and mitigate unconscious bias, promoting diversity and inclusion. These tools can highlight potentially biased language or patterns in hiring decisions that may inadvertently favor one group over another.
Employee Monitoring and Analytics
Productivity and Engagement Analysis: Employers use AI to analyze employee productivity and engagement, identifying patterns that might indicate issues such as burnout or disengagement. While controversial due to privacy concerns, when used ethically, these tools can help improve workplace conditions and employee satisfaction.
Workplace Dispute Resolution
Predictive Analysis for Litigation Outcomes: AI can analyze historical data on employment disputes to predict the outcomes of current cases, including potential settlement amounts. This can guide lawyers in advising their clients on whether to settle or proceed to trial.
Contract Analysis and Management
Automated Review of Employment Contracts: AI-powered contract analysis tools can quickly review employment contracts, identifying clauses that are non-standard, potentially problematic, or non-compliant with current laws. This helps lawyers ensure that contracts meet legal standards and protect their clients' interests.
Training and Policy Development
Development of Customized Training Programs: AI can help in the creation of personalized training programs for employees, focusing on areas such as harassment prevention, diversity and inclusion, and ethical conduct. By analyzing employee feedback and performance, AI tools can tailor content to address specific needs and gaps within an organization.
Case Study Analysis
Learning from Precedents: AI tools can sift through vast amounts of case law to find relevant precedents in employment law. This aids lawyers in building stronger cases by quickly identifying and analyzing prior rulings that support their position.
The application of AI in employment law demonstrates its potential to transform the field by making processes more efficient, enhancing compliance, and providing valuable insights into complex legal issues. As with any use of AI in legal practices, it's important to balance the benefits of these technologies with ethical considerations, particularly regarding data privacy and the potential for bias.

Me: Many of your suggestions depend on having access to large databases of information that may not be commercially available at a reasonable price or not available at all.

How can small law firms effectively employ inexpensive AI tools in daily practical applications? How can lawyers use Chatbots, such as ChatGPT to increase operational efficiencies?

ChatGPT: Small law firms can employ inexpensive AI tools, including chatbots like ChatGPT, to enhance operational efficiencies in various ways. These tools can significantly improve productivity, client service, and even legal research, without the need for large databases or substantial financial investments. Here’s how:

Client Interaction and Intake Process
Automated Client Intake: Chatbots can be programmed to handle initial client inquiries on the firm’s website, collecting basic case information, scheduling consultations, and providing answers to frequently asked questions. This automation saves time and ensures that attorneys can focus on clients with pressing legal needs.
Client Support and FAQ: A chatbot can offer 24/7 support to clients, answering common questions about their cases, the legal process, billing inquiries, or general firm policies. This enhances client satisfaction by providing immediate responses.
Document Automation and Drafting
Automated Document Drafting: Tools like ChatGPT can assist in drafting standard legal documents, letters, and forms based on templates. By inputting specific information or criteria, lawyers can generate tailored documents, saving time on routine drafting tasks.
Contract Review: AI chatbots can be used to conduct preliminary reviews of contracts and other legal documents, identifying key clauses, potential issues, or deviations from standard templates.
Legal Research
Preliminary Legal Research: While in-depth legal analysis often requires access to comprehensive legal databases, chatbots can provide preliminary legal research, summarizing relevant laws, cases, and legal principles. This can be a starting point before delving into detailed research using subscription-based legal databases.
Knowledge Management
Internal Knowledge Base: Small firms can develop an internal knowledge base using AI, where frequently asked questions, standard procedures, and case law summaries are stored. Chatbots can help navigate this database, allowing lawyers and staff to quickly find information.
Time Management and Scheduling
Scheduling and Reminders: AI chatbots can manage calendars, schedule meetings, and send reminders to clients and attorneys, ensuring that deadlines are met and appointments are kept.
Training and Continuing Education
Legal Education: AI tools can curate and summarize recent legal developments, relevant articles, and continuing legal education (CLE) materials, aiding in the ongoing education of lawyers and staff.
Cost and Implementation Considerations
The key to effective employment of AI tools in small law firms lies in:
Choosing Scalable Solutions: Opt for AI tools that offer scalability, allowing the firm to start with basic functionalities and add more features as needed.
Prioritizing High-Impact Areas: Focus on implementing AI solutions in areas that will have the most immediate impact on efficiency and client service.
Leveraging Free and Open-Source Options: Explore free and open-source AI tools and platforms. While some may require customization, they can provide significant benefits without substantial costs.
Continuous Learning and Adaptation: Encourage a culture of continuous learning and adaptation among staff to maximize the benefits of AI tools.

By strategically incorporating AI tools and chatbots into their operations, small law firms can achieve greater operational efficiencies, improve client satisfaction, and remain competitive in a rapidly evolving legal landscape.

Me: We have not mentioned the use of AI in legal marketing. Given the strength of Chatbots in generating high-quality English prose, it is likely that AI could efficiently produce social media posts, blog posts, email newsletters, etc. for client communication and new client prospecting purposes.

What are your thoughts about this possibility?

ChatGPT: Utilizing AI, particularly chatbots capable of generating high-quality prose, for legal marketing is not only feasible but can offer significant advantages in terms of efficiency, personalization, and reach. AI-driven content creation tools can transform how law firms engage with current and prospective clients through various channels. Here's a breakdown of the potential uses and benefits:

Content Creation for Blogs and Social Media
Efficiency in Content Production: AI can rapidly generate drafts for blog posts, social media updates, and articles on legal topics, significantly reducing the time lawyers and their staff spend on these tasks. By inputing a topic and key points, firms can obtain well-crafted initial drafts that only require minor edits or legal oversight before publishing.
Consistency and Frequency: Maintaining a consistent and frequent publishing schedule is crucial for effective digital marketing. AI tools can help law firms keep up with the demands of content creation, ensuring that their online presence remains active and engaging.
Email Newsletters
Personalization at Scale: AI can analyze client preferences and interaction history to personalize newsletters, sending targeted information that matches the interests and needs of each subscriber. This level of personalization can enhance client engagement and loyalty.
Automated Updates and Alerts: Law firms can use AI to automatically generate updates about relevant legal changes, upcoming events, or important deadlines, keeping clients informed and demonstrating the firm's proactive approach to communication.
Client Prospecting and Lead Generation
Targeted Content for Lead Generation: AI can help identify topics of high interest to potential clients and generate content that addresses these areas, attracting website visits and inquiries. By analyzing data on user behavior and preferences, AI tools can refine content strategies over time to improve lead generation efforts.
Chatbots for Initial Engagement: On websites and social media, chatbots can engage potential clients by answering basic questions, providing information about the firm’s services, and even qualifying leads by collecting preliminary case information. This immediate engagement can significantly improve conversion rates.
SEO Optimization
Search Engine Optimization (SEO): AI tools can optimize content for search engines, suggesting keywords, analyzing the competitiveness of topics, and even adjusting content structure for better visibility. This ensures that the firm’s content reaches a wider audience by ranking higher in search results.
Ethical and Strategic Considerations
While the potential for AI in legal marketing is significant, it's essential to approach its use ethically and strategically:
Quality Control and Accuracy: Ensure that all AI-generated content is reviewed for accuracy and quality before publication. It's crucial to maintain the firm's professional image and comply with legal advertising ethics rules.
Transparency and Authenticity: Maintain a balance between AI-generated content and personal touches from the lawyers themselves. Personal insights, experiences, and expertise add authenticity and value that pure AI content cannot replicate.
Privacy and Data Protection: Be mindful of privacy laws and data protection regulations when using AI to analyze client data for personalization or targeting.

In conclusion, AI holds promising potential for revolutionizing legal marketing by making content creation more efficient, personalizing client communications, and enhancing lead generation strategies. With careful implementation and oversight, law firms can leverage AI to strengthen their marketing efforts while upholding the highest standards of professionalism and ethical practice.

Me: I'm confident that robots will not replace lawyers in my lifetime, but I recently celebrated my 72nd birthday. Younger sprouts may be in for an interesting ride after I'm gone. Although artificial intelligence may not supplant human lawyers this year, attorneys who learn to use AI tools in their practice will have a clear competitive advantage over those who do not. This year is a good time to prepare yourself for the coming wave of AI. Next year is a far horizon.

------------------------------------------

The Integration And Evolution Of Artificial Intelligence (AI) In The Legal Profession

2024-04-09T07:04:00.001-04:00

The integration and evolution of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal profession have accelerated rapidly over the past year, marking significant developments in how legal services are delivered, the efficiency of law practice, and the broader implications for the legal system. These developments can be broadly categorized into efficiency improvements, the legal tech startup ecosystem, skill requirements for new legal technologies, and significant milestones throughout the year.

Efficiency Improvements

AI technologies, particularly large language models like GPT-3 and GPT-4, have brought profound efficiency improvements to the legal profession. Law firms leveraging AI can offer services at lower costs, achieve higher efficiency, and increase the likelihood of favorable litigation outcomes. AI excels in tasks such as analyzing vast document sets produced during discovery, drafting motions, and customizing documents that traditionally consumed a significant amount of attorney time. Real-time analysis of trial transcripts to assist in witness questioning is another area where AI contributes significantly. This streamlining of processes translates into cost-effectiveness and time savings, enabling firms to remain competitive (Brookings).

The Legal Tech Startup Ecosystem

The rise of AI in law has catalyzed the emergence of a vibrant legal tech startup ecosystem. Companies like Casetext have developed AI legal assistants such as CoCounsel, which leverages technology from OpenAI, demonstrating the potential for AI to handle tasks traditionally assigned to junior associates. This ecosystem is expanding, with legal tech companies offering a range of AI-based products designed to enhance various aspects of legal practice (Brookings).

Skills Requirement

To maximize the benefits of AI tools, attorneys need to go beyond basic usage and understand how to effectively integrate AI into their workflow. The effectiveness of AI is maximized when it complements human skills, meaning that legal professionals must become adept at working alongside AI to leverage its full potential. This involves understanding the capabilities and limitations of AI technologies and being able to manipulate them to suit specific legal tasks (Brookings).

Significant Milestones in 2023

The year 2023 saw several milestones that underline the rapid evolution of AI in the legal sector:

The integration of generative AI technologies like ChatGPT in legal tech.
OpenAI's GPT-4, noted for its capability to pass the bar exam, further emphasizes AI's growing competence in legal reasoning.
A surge in demand for AI specialists and prompt engineers in legal job markets.
Notable investments in AI startups and acquisitions, such as Thomson Reuters acquiring Casetext for $650 million, showcasing the increasing value placed on AI-driven legal solutions.
Legislative and regulatory milestones, including the EU's proposed AI Act, aimed at regulating the use of AI across various sectors including law (Legal Soluciones).

Additional Perspectives

AI's role extends beyond efficiency improvements to potentially increasing access to justice. Initiatives are exploring how AI can assist individuals in solving legal problems, offering clear and authoritative information. However, concerns persist about the reliability of AI-generated advice and the potential for missed critical legal details like statute limitations. Furthermore, there's an ongoing effort to harness AI for fostering fairness and efficiency in the legal system and beyond, including masking race-related information in prosecutorial decisions to avoid bias (HarvLawProf) (Stanford Law School).

Conclusion

The integration of AI in the legal profession represents a significant shift towards more efficient, accessible, and equitable legal services. However, the rapid development of AI technologies also presents challenges, including the need for updated legal and policy frameworks, as well as the necessity for attorneys to acquire new skills to effectively use these tools. As we look forward, the continued evolution of AI in law promises to further reshape the practice, offering both opportunities and challenges that must be navigated with careful consideration.

For further reading and in-depth analysis, the sources referenced provide comprehensive insights into the developments of AI in the legal profession:

Brookings on AI revolutionizing law practice (Brookings).
Thomson Reuters' review of AI's impact over the year (Legal Soluciones).
Harvard Law School on generative AI in the legal profession (HarvLawProf).
Stanford Law School's research on AI increasing access to justice (Stanford Law School).
Bloomberg Law on AI in legal practice (Bloomberg Law)

FRCP Rule 33 - Interrogatories (mindmap)

2024-04-08T22:20:00.000-04:00

Ask a Robot: How can lawyers best use ChatGPT as a practice tool to improve efficiency?

2024-04-07T12:26:00.005-04:00

ChatGPT answers:

Lawyers can leverage ChatGPT as a practice tool to enhance efficiency in various ways:

Legal Research Assistance: ChatGPT can assist lawyers in conducting legal research by providing quick access to legal principles, case law summaries, statutes, and other relevant legal information. Lawyers can ask specific questions or provide prompts related to their research needs, and ChatGPT can generate relevant responses to help guide their research process.

Drafting Assistance: ChatGPT can aid lawyers in drafting legal documents, such as contracts, briefs, pleadings, and letters. Lawyers can provide prompts outlining the key points or arguments they wish to include in the document, and ChatGPT can generate draft text that can be further refined and customized by the lawyer.

Case Analysis and Strategy: Lawyers can use ChatGPT to analyze legal issues, evaluate case law, and develop litigation or negotiation strategies. By engaging in simulated conversations with ChatGPT about specific legal scenarios or case facts, lawyers can gain insights and perspectives that may inform their decision-making process.

Continuing Legal Education (CLE): ChatGPT can serve as a valuable resource for lawyers seeking to expand their legal knowledge and skills through self-directed learning. Lawyers can engage with ChatGPT to explore new areas of law, review foundational legal concepts, and stay updated on recent legal developments.

Client Communication and Education: ChatGPT can assist lawyers in communicating with clients and educating them about legal matters. Lawyers can use ChatGPT to draft client communications, answer frequently asked questions, and provide explanations of legal concepts in a clear and understandable manner.

Time Management and Productivity: By delegating certain tasks to ChatGPT, lawyers can free up time for more high-value activities, such as case analysis, client advocacy, and business development. ChatGPT can help lawyers streamline routine tasks, such as drafting routine correspondence or conducting initial legal research, allowing them to focus their time and energy on more complex and strategic aspects of their practice.

Overall, lawyers can maximize the efficiency of their practice by integrating ChatGPT into their workflow as a versatile tool for legal research, drafting, analysis, communication, and professional development. By leveraging the capabilities of ChatGPT, lawyers can enhance their productivity, effectiveness, and overall performance in the practice of law.

Ethical considerations for artificial intelligence in the practice of law

2024-04-06T00:56:00.000-04:00

When using AI tools, lawyers have the following ethical considerations:

Duty of Competence: Lawyers have a duty to understand the risks and benefits associated with using AI tools and ensure that they are competent in using them. This duty includes staying updated on changes in the law and technology. Lawyers should also vet the outputs of AI tools before using them in their work to avoid any catastrophic results.

Can failing to use an available AI tool be considered a failure to meet the duty of competence?

Lawyers have a duty to keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice: According to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, lawyers have a duty of competence, which includes staying updated on changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. As AI tools become more prevalent in the legal profession, lawyers must become knowledgeable about their potential benefits and risks.

Lawyers have an ethical duty to understand the risks and benefits of using AI tools for both themselves and their clients. By failing to utilize available AI tools, lawyers may miss out on potential benefits such as increased efficiency and accuracy in their work.

Incorporating AI tools without compromising competent representation: Lawyers should consider how they can incorporate AI tools into their practices without compromising the competent representation of their clients. While AI can be a powerful tool, lawyers must vet any outputs generated by AI tools before using them. Failure to do so may result in catastrophic consequences for both lawyers and clients, as seen in the example of attorneys sanctioned for submitting a brief authored by AI referencing nonexistent case law.

Given the increasing sophistication and widespread use of AI tools in the legal profession, clients will expect lawyers to provide legal services more efficiently. Therefore, when AI tools are available to enhance the quality or efficiency of legal services, not using them may be seen as a failure to meet the duty of competence.

In summary, lawyers must understand the risks and benefits of AI tools, incorporate them into their practices without compromising competent representation, and utilize available AI tools to provide legal services more efficiently. Failure to do so may be considered a failure to meet the duty of competence.

Communication with Clients: Lawyers are obliged to communicate with their clients about using AI tools in their representation. They should explain how and why they intend to use AI tools, discuss the associated benefits and risks, and inform the client if they choose not to use AI.

The risks of a data breach and possible inadvertent revelation of confidential information must be a consideration.

What duty do lawyers have regarding client communication and objectives?

Lawyers have a duty to communicate with their clients about the scope of the lawyer's representation and to consult with the client about how the lawyer intends to accomplish the client's objectives. This duty is imposed by Rule 1.2 and Rule 1.4 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers must explain to their clients how and why they intend to use AI tools in the course of representing the client and discuss with the client the associated benefits and risks of using such tools. If a lawyer chooses not to use AI, they must also communicate this decision to the client.

What is Rule 1.4 about in the context of using AI tools?

In the context of using AI tools, Rule 1.4 is about the duty of lawyers to consult with their clients about how they intend to accomplish the client's objectives. When using AI tools, lawyers ought to explain to their clients how and why they plan to use these tools in the course of representing them. This explanation includes discussing the associated benefits and risks of using AI tools. Additionally, if a lawyer chooses not to use AI, they must communicate this decision to the client. The purpose of Rule 1.4 is to ensure transparency and open communication between lawyers and their clients regarding using AI tools in legal representation.

Fees for Legal Services: Lawyers should consider the ethical limitations of their fees when employing AI tools. They ought to determine whether it is ethically permissible to bill a client for work performed by an AI tool and how to account for the time expended by the AI tool. Conversely, lawyers may be ethically obligated to use available technology to provide legal services more efficiently.

Confidentiality: Lawyers must ensure that their AI tools have implemented measures to protect client information. They should review the terms of use and privacy policies of AI tools before using them and only use tools that provide adequate confidentiality safeguards. Lawyers should also be cautious about sharing sensitive information with AI tools and advise clients to do the same.

How should lawyers ensure the security of client information when using AI tools?

Lawyers can ensure the security of client information when using AI tools by following these steps:

Review the terms of use and privacy policies of the AI tool: Before using an AI tool, lawyers should carefully review the terms of use and privacy policies provided by the tool's developer. This review will help them understand how the tool handles and protects user data, including client information.

Choose AI tools with solid security measures: Lawyers should select AI tools that have implemented robust security measures to protect client information. These measures may include data encryption, secure storage practices, and regular security audits. Lawyers should prioritize tools with a proven track record of maintaining data security.

Consult with technology experts: Lawyers may need to consult with technology experts to better understand how an AI tool works and whether it can be safely deployed in their specific client matters. These experts can assess the tool's security features and provide guidance on its suitability for handling sensitive client information.

Obtain informed written consent from clients: If an AI tool lacks robust confidentiality and data security measures, lawyers should obtain informed written consent before using it. Ensure that clients are aware of the potential risks and have given their explicit permission for the tool to process their information.

Limit data sharing with AI tools: Lawyers should exercise caution when sharing client or firm data with AI tools. They should only provide the minimum necessary information and avoid sharing sensitive or confidential information that could compromise the attorney-client privilege. Lawyers should also verify whether any third parties have access to the data processed by the AI tool to ensure that client information remains secure.

By following these steps, lawyers can take proactive measures to ensure the security of client information when using AI tools in their legal practices.

Supervision: Lawyers who supervise junior and non-lawyers must ensure the use of AI tools in compliance with professional obligations. Non-supervisory lawyers and non-lawyers also have an ethical obligation to use AI tools consistent with the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyers should understand which tasks are appropriate for AI tools and ensure the accuracy of AI outputs.

Thoroughly review AI-generated work product: AI-generated work products should only be presented as finished content or a lawyer's final product with a thorough review. Lawyers have a professional obligation to carefully review any outputs generated by AI tools to ensure their accuracy and to remove any potentially confidential or sensitive information.

Incorporating AI into the practice of law requires careful consideration of these ethical obligations to ensure that AI tools are compatible with professional standards and the Rules of Professional Conduct. Using these tools in your practice can enhance efficiency and productivity. However, ensuring that your clients are fully informed about using these tools is crucial, especially when dealing with sensitive and confidential information. Here's a step-by-step guide on how to educate your clients, minimize risks, and obtain informed consent:

Client Communication:

Start by openly and transparently conversing with your clients about using AI tools in your practice. Explain how these tools can benefit them by streamlining processes, improving accuracy, and potentially reducing costs.

Clearly articulate the AI tools you intend to use, such as chat AI for drafting emails or AI-powered document review systems.

Emphasize your commitment to maintaining confidentiality and safeguarding their sensitive information throughout the use of these tools.

Education and Explanation:

Provide your clients with information about the specific AI tools you plan to use, including how they work and the security measures to protect their data.

Offer educational materials or resources to help your clients understand the role of AI in legal practice and address any concerns they may have about privacy and security.

Privacy and Security Measures:

Implement robust security protocols to safeguard client data against unauthorized access or breaches. This may include encryption, access controls, regular software updates, and secure communication channels.

Ensure that your AI tools comply with relevant data protection regulations, such as GDPR in the European Union.

US ex rel. Hedstrom, et al v. Advanced Pain Management SC, Settlement Agreement

2023-07-10T17:33:00.002-04:00

In 2013 Gina Hedstrom, a former employee of Advanced Pain Management, LLC (APM), fileda Qui Tam whistleblower complaint against APM alleging corrupt and fraudulent business practices, violations of the federal False Claims Act, violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Act, violations of the Social Security / Medicare laws, and violations of various Wisconsin and Minnesota state laws. The United States, Wisconsin, and Minnesota intervened as Plaintiffs. United States ex rel. Hedstrom, et al v. Advanced Pain Management SC, et al, Case No. 13-CV-556, ED Wis.

*******************

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

This Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into among

(i) the United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice and on behalf of the Office of Inspector General (“OIG-HHS”) of the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) (collectively, the "United States");

(ii) the State of Wisconsin ("Wisconsin");

(iii) the State of Minnesota (“Minnesota") (collectively with Wisconsin and the United States, the "Government Parties");

(iv) Advanced Pain Management Holdings, Inc. ("APMH");

(v) Advanced Pain Management S.C. (“APMSC");

(vi) APM Wisconsin MSO, LLC; (vii) Advanced Pain Management, LLC (“APM LLC”) (collectively with APMH, APMSC, APM Wisconsin MSO, LLC, and APM LLC, the "APM Entities"); and

(vii) and Gina Hedstrom (hereafter collectively referred to as "the Parties"), through their authorized representatives.

RECITALS

A. APMH is based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and through its wholly owned subsidiary APM Wisconsin MSO, LLC, owns, in whole or in part, and operates ambulatory surgery centers in Wisconsin and Minnesota. APMSC is also based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. APMSC is managed by APM Wisconsin MSO, LLC and owns and operates health care clinics that employ and contract with physicians who are pain management specialists and provide pain management services. APMSC physicians perform pain management procedures at the APMH ambulatory surgery centers. APMH does not employ the APMSC-employed physicians.

B. On May 16, 2013, Gina Hedstrom filed a qui tam action in the United States

District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin captioned United States, et al. ex rel. Hedstrom v. Advanced Pain Mgmt., et al., Case No. 13-C-556, pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b) (the "Civil Action")

C. The Government Parties contend that the APM Entities submitted or caused to be

submitted claims for payment to the Medicare Program, Title XVIII of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395-1395kkk-1 ("Medicare"), and the Medicaid Program, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396- 1396w-5 ("Medicaid").

D. The Government Parties contend that they have certain civil claims against the APM Entities for:

1. submitting claims for payment from December 1, 2015 through July 8, 2019 to Medicare, Wisconsin Medicaid, and Minnesota Medicaid for confirmatory urine drug tests that were not medically necessary. On December 23, 2019, the APM entities made a self-disclosure to the United States, that providers did not customize orders for confirmatory UDTs based on each patient's individualized risk assessment and circumstances, resulting in a higher level of coding than supported by the medical record. The conduct described in this Paragraph shall be referred to herein as the "Disclosed Covered Conduct.”

2. paying kickbacks to certain APMSC physicians during the period from January 1, 2012 until October 30, 2019 resulting from the following allegations:

(a) APMH established an Incentive Compensation Plan that granted stock shares in APMH to certain APMSC physicians who performed procedures at APMH's ambulatory surgery centers. The physicians were not employed by APMH the entity that issued the incentive stock.

(b) The incentive stock was given to APMSC physicians as a reward for past and anticipated referrals to APMH's ambulatory surgery centers. The incentive stock was not compensation given by the physicians' employer and was outside the scope of their employment.

(c) The incentive stock was to be redeemed at the time of a liquidity event and was dependent on the profitability of APMH at that time, which profitability was determined largely by APMSC physician referrals.

(d) APMSC also agreed to pay certain APMSC-employed physicians a monthly fee to act as medical directors of the individual ambulatory surgery centers. The medical directors were compensated using a tiered schedule based on the size of the ambulatory surgery center as determined by the number of procedures performed at each ambulatory surgery center, there were no written agreements specifying the responsibilities of each medical director, and the medical directors were not required to record or report what medical director functions they had performed.

As a result of the above allegations, the United States contends that neither the Incentive Stock Plan nor the medical director agreements met the Anti-Kickback Statute safe harbors and the APM Entities knowingly caused false or fraudulent claims to be submitted to federal healthcare programs in order to increase the number of procedures performed at the ambulatory surgery centers. This conduct, collectively with the Disclosed Covered Conduct, is referred to below as the "Covered Conduct.”

E. This Settlement Agreement is neither an admission of liability by the APM Entities nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded. The APM Entities deny the allegations in Relator's complaint, and in paragraph C and D, above.

F. Relator claims entitlement under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) to a share of the proceeds of this Settlement Agreement and to Relator's reasonable expenses, attorneys' fees and costs.

To avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience, and expense of protracted litigation of the above claims, and in consideration of the mutual promises and obligations of this Settlement Agreement, the Parties agree and covenant as follows:

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

1. The APM Entities shall pay to the Government Parties One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) (the "Settlement Amount") as follows:

(a) The APM Entities shall pay to the United States the Settlement Amount, which constitutes restitution to the Government Parties, no later than forty-five (45) days after the Effective Date of this Agreement by electronic funds transfer pursuant to written instructions to be provided by the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin;

(b) The United States shall pay to Wisconsin Ninety Thousand, Eight Hundred and Sixty Three Dollars ($90,863) (the "Wisconsin Settlement Amount"), which constitutes Wisconsin's share of the Settlement Amount less Wisconsin's payment to Relator, as soon as feasible after receipt of the Settlement Amount, pursuant to written instructions to be provided by the Wisconsin Department of Justice; and

(c) The United States shall pay to Minnesota Nine Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixty Eight Dollars ($9,568) (the "Minnesota Settlement Amount"), which constitutes Minnesota's share of the Settlement Amount less Minnesota's payment to Relator, as soon as feasible after receipt of the Settlement Amount, pursuant to written instructions to be provided by the Office of the Minnesota Attorney General.

2. Conditioned upon the United States receiving the Settlement Amount from the APM Entities and as soon as feasible after receipt, the United States shall pay $152,270 on behalf of the Government Parties, to Relator by electronic funds transfer.

3.The APM Entities shall pay to the Relator and Relator's undersigned counsel One Hundred Fifty Thousand 00/100 Dollars ($150,000.00) as follows:

(a) The APM Entities shall pay to Relator the total sum of Twenty-five Thousand 00/100 Dollars ($25,000.00) in full satisfaction of any claims pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3730(h), as a result of the Civil Action, and as described in Paragraph 11. Half of such payment represents payment for lost wages and benefits, from which there will be normal withholding, in accordance with regular payroll practices and applicable law, and with regard to which Relator will receive a Form W-2 indicating the payment, and the other half represents payment for special damages, not for wages or other periodic payment, which funds shall be paid to Relator as an IRS 1099 payment. The APM Entities make no representations with regard to the tax consequences of this payment, and Relator agrees that she shall be solely responsible for any taxes that might be owed by her as a result of this payment. Relator agrees to hold the APM Entities harmless with respect to any taxes, penalty or interest (including but not limited to FICA, Medicare tax, state unemployment premiums or other lawful deductions) assessed because of any payment made pursuant to this Agreement. Payment shall be made within five (5) business days of Effective Date of this Agreement by electronic funds transfer subject to instructions to be provided by Relator.

(b) Defendants shall pay to counsel for Relator the total sum of One Hundred Twenty-five Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($125,000.00) in full satisfaction of any expenses, attorneys' fees and costs, as set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1), as a result of the Civil Action, and as described in Paragraph 11. Payment shall be made within five (5) business days of Effective Date of this Agreement by electronic funds transfer, subject to instructions to be provided by Relator's counsel. The APM Entities acknowledge that this amount is commensurate with an ability-to-pay settlement and stipulates that Relator's undersigned counsel's standard hourly rate is $695.00, for purposes of this Agreement. Payment shall be reported on Forms 1099-MISC to Relator and Relator's Counsel and designated as "other income." Relator and Relator's undersigned counsel acknowledge that the Defendants shall not be responsible for any claims for expenses, attorneys' fees and costs, beyond the amount set forth in this Paragraph related to the Civil Action.

The above payments shall be delivered to Relator and her counsel within five (5) business days of the Effective Date of this Agreement, provided that Relator and Relator's counsel have timely delivered appropriate wiring instructions and each has provided a completed and executed IRS W-9 federal tax form to counsel for APM Entities (or within five business days following such delivery, whichever is later).

4. Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 (concerning excluded claims) below, and conditioned upon the APM Entities' full payment of the Settlement Amount, and subject to Paragraph 20 (concerning bankruptcy proceedings) below, the United States releases the APM Entities together with their current and former: direct and indirect parent corporations; direct and indirect subsidiaries; brother or sister corporations; divisions; and the corporate successors and assigns of any of them from any civil or administrative monetary claim the United States has for the Covered Conduct under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733; the Civil Monetary Penalties Law, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a; the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3801-3812; or the common law theories of payment by mistake, unjust enrichment, and fraud.

5. In consideration of the obligations of the APM Entities in this Agreement and conditioned upon the APM Entities' full payment of the Settlement Amount, OIG-HHS agrees to release and refrain from instituting, directing, or maintaining any administrative action seeking exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs (as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(f)) against the APM Entities under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7a (Civil Monetary Penalties Law) or 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(7) (permissive exclusion for fraud, kickbacks, and other prohibited activities) for the Disclosed Covered Conduct, except as reserved in this paragraph and in paragraph 9 (concerning excluded claims), below. OIG-HHS expressly reserves all rights to comply with any statutory obligations to exclude the APM Entities from Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health care programs under 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(a) (mandatory exclusion) based upon the Covered Conduct. Nothing in this paragraph precludes OIG-HHS from taking action against entities or persons, or for conduct and practices, for which claims have been reserved in paragraph 9, below.

6. Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 (concerning excluded claims) below, and conditioned upon the APM Entities' full payment of the Settlement Amount, and subject to Paragraph 20 (concerning bankruptcy proceedings) below, Wisconsin releases the APM Entities together with their current and former: direct and indirect parent corporations; direct and indirect subsidiaries; brother or sister corporations; divisions; related captive professional corporations; and the corporate successors and assigns of any of them from any civil or administrative monetary claim Wisconsin has for the Covered Conduct under the Wisconsin False Claims for Medical Assistance Law, Wis. Stat. §§ 20.931 et seq., Wisconsin False Claims Statute, Wis. Stat. § 49.485, the Wisconsin Medical Assistance Fraud Statute, Wis. Stat. § 49.49(4m) et seq., or the common law theory of unjust enrichment.

7. Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 (concerning excluded claims) below, and conditioned upon the APM Entities' full payment of the Settlement Amount, and subject to Paragraph 20 (concerning bankruptcy proceedings) below, Minnesota releases the APM Entities together with their current and former: direct and indirect parent corporations; direct and indirect subsidiaries; brother or sister corporations; divisions; related captive professional corporation and the corporate successors and assigns of any of them from any civil or administrative monetary claim Minnesota has for the Covered Conduct under the Minnesota False Claims Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 15C.01 et seq., or the common law theory of unjust enrichment.

8. Subject to the exceptions in Paragraph 9 (concerning excluded claims) below, and conditioned upon the APM Entities' full payment of the Settlement Amount, and subject to Paragraph 20 (concerning bankruptcy proceedings) below, Relator, for herself and for her heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns, releases the APM Entities together with their current and former: direct and indirect parent corporations; direct and indirect subsidiaries; brother or sister corporations; divisions; related captive professional corporations; and the corporate successors and assigns of any of them from any civil monetary claim the Relator has on behalf of the United States and the states of Wisconsin and Minnesota for the Covered Conduct and

allegations in the Complaint under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733; the Wisconsin False Claims for Medical Assistance Law, Wis. Stat. §§ 20.931 et seq.; and the Minnesota False Claims Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 15C.01 et seq.

9. Notwithstanding the releases given in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 of this Agreement, or any other term of this Agreement, the following claims of the United States, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are specifically reserved and are not released:

(a) Any liability arising under Title 26, U.S. Code (Internal Revenue Code) or state revenue codes;

(b) Any criminal liability;

(c) Except as explicitly stated in this Agreement, any administrative liability including mandatory or permissive exclusion from Federal health care programs or state health care program.

(d) Any liability to the United States (or its agencies), Wisconsin, or Minnesota for any conduct other than the Covered Conduct;

(e) Any liability based upon obligations created by this Agreement;

(f) Any liability of individuals;

(g) Any liability for express or implied warranty claims or other claims for defective or deficient products or services, including quality of goods and services;

(h)Any liability for failure to deliver goods or services due; and

(i) Any liability for personal injury or property damage or for other consequential damages arising from the Covered Conduct.

10. Relator and her heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns shall not object to this Agreement but agree and confirm that this Agreement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(B). Conditioned upon Relator's receipt of the payment described in Paragraph 2, Relator and her heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns fully and finally release, waive, and forever discharge the Government Parties, their agencies, officers, agents, employees, and servants, from any claims arising from the filing of the Civil Action or under 31 U.S.C. § 3730 or Wis. Stat. § 20.931, and from any claims to a share of the proceeds of this Agreement and/or the Civil Action.

11.Conditioned upon full payment by the APM Entities of the amounts provided in Paragraph 3 (above), Relator for and on behalf of herself and her current, former and future heirs, executors, administrators, successors, agents, attorneys, and assigns, hereby waives, releases, acquits and forever discharges the APM Entities, including any and all current, former and future direct and indirect parent corporations, direct and indirect subsidiaries, brother or sister corporations, divisions, and the corporate successors and assigns thereof, former and future insurers, attorneys, representatives, partners, investors, stockholders thereof, as well as the current, former and future officers, directors, trustees, board members, agents and employees of any of the above, and all persons or entities acting by, through, under, or in concert with any of them ("APM Released Parties"), from: a) the Covered Conduct and any and all claims alleged or which could have been alleged in the Civil Action, whether known or unknown; b) any and all claims of any type arising prior to the execution of this Agreement under federal, state or local law; and c) any other claims arising out of or in any way related to Relator's employment and the termination of her employment, including but not limited to any claims pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3730(h) or any other retaliation claims arising under federal or state law. Relator represents and agrees that: (a) she has not filed any lawsuits against any of the APM Released Parties in any court other than the Complaint; (b) she has not filed or caused to be filed any charges or complaints against any of the APM Released Parties with any municipal, state or federal agency charged with the enforcement of any law; (c) pursuant to and as a part of Relator's complete, total and irrevocable release and discharge of the APM Released Parties, to the fullest extent permitted by law, she shall not sue or file a complaint or grievance of whatsoever nature or description in any forum, judicial, administrative or otherwise, or support a claim filed by another APM Entities' employee. Relator represents and warrants that she is not currently aware of any legal claim that could lawfully be brought at this time against the APM Released Parties other than those encompassed within the Covered Conduct and the claims in the Civil Action, for which a full release is granted herein. Relator expressly waives any rights to seek re-employment with or be employed by APM Entities or any damages for rejection of any application for employment in violation of this provision. Additionally, conditioned upon full payment of the amounts provided in Paragraph 3 (above) by the APM Entities, Relator and Relator's undersigned counsel, for themselves and for their heirs, successors, attorneys, agents, and assigns, and any other person or entity acting on their behalf or asserting their rights, acknowledge that payment of the amount set forth in this Paragraph 3 for expenses, attorneys' fees and costs, fully and forever satisfies any obligations by the APM Released Parties to pay reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses to Relator and/or Relator's undersigned counsel pursuant to the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(1) in connection with the Civil Action and hereby agree to fully and finally release the APM Released Parties from any and all causes of action, rights, or claims, whether known or unknown, that Relator or Relator's undersigned counsel have asserted or could assert for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses in connection with the Civil Action.

12. The APM Entities provided sworn financial disclosure statements (Financial Statements) to the United States and the United States has relied on the accuracy and completeness of those Financial Statements in reaching this Agreement. The APM Entities warrant that the Financial Statements are complete, accurate, and current as of July 10, 2020. If the United States, Wisconsin, or Minnesota learn of asset(s) in which the APM Entities have an interest at the time of execution of this Agreement that were not disclosed in the Financial Statements, or if the United States, Wisconsin, or Minnesota learn of any misrepresentation by the APM Entities on, or in connection with, the Financial Statements, and if such nondisclosure or misrepresentation increases the estimated net worth set forth in the Financial Statements by $100,000 or more, the United States, Wisconsin, and Minnesota may at their option: (a) rescind this Agreement and file suit based on the Covered Conduct, or (b) let the Agreement stand and collect the full Settlement Amount plus one hundred percent (100%) of the value of the net worth of the APM Entities previously undisclosed. The APM Entities agree not to contest any collection action undertaken by the United States, Wisconsin, or Minnesota pursuant to this provision, and immediately to pay the United States, Wisconsin, or Minnesota all reasonable costs incurred in such an action, including attorney's fees and expenses.

13. In the event that the United States, Wisconsin, or Minnesota, pursuant to Paragraph 11 above, opt to rescind this Agreement, the APM Entities agree not to plead, argue, or otherwise raise any defenses under the theories of statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, or similar theories, to any civil or administrative claims that (a) are filed by the United States, Wisconsin, or Minnesota within 60 calendar days of written notification to the APM Entities that this Agreement has been rescinded, and (b) relate to the Covered Conduct, except to the extent these defenses were available on May 16, 2013.

14. The APM Entities waive and shall not assert any defenses the APM Entities may have to any criminal prosecution or administrative action relating to the Covered Conduct that may be based in whole or in part on a contention that, under the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution, or under the Excessive Fines Clause in the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution, this Agreement bars a remedy sought in such criminal prosecution or administrative action.

15. The APM Entities fully and finally release the Government Parties, their agencies, officers, agents, employees, and servants, from any claims (including attorney's fees, costs, and expenses of every kind and however denominated) that the APM Entities have asserted, could have asserted, or may assert in the future against the Government Parties, their agencies, officers, agents, employees, and servants, related to the Covered Conduct and the Government Parties' investigation and prosecution thereof.

16. The Settlement Amount shall not be decreased as a result of the denial of claims for payment now being withheld from payment by any Medicare contractor (e.g., Medicare Administrative Contractor, fiscal intermediary, carrier) or any state payer, related to the Covered Conduct; and the APM Entities agree not to resubmit to any Medicare contractor or any state payer any previously denied claims related to the Covered Conduct, agree not to appeal any such denials of claims, and agree to withdraw any such pending appeals.

17. The APM Entities agree to the following:

(a) Unallowable Costs Defined: All costs (as defined in the Federal

Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. § 31.205-47; and in Titles XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1395-13951ll-1 and 1396-1396w-5; and the regulations and official program directives promulgated thereunder) incurred by or on behalf of the APM Entities, its present or former officers, directors, employees, shareholders, and agents in connection with:

(1) the matters covered by this Agreement;

(2) the United States' audit(s) and civil investigation(s) of the matters covered by this Agreement;

(3) the APM Entities' investigation, defense, and corrective actions undertaken in response to the United States' audit(s) and civil investigation(s) in connection with the matters covered by this Agreement (including attorney's fees);

(4) the negotiation and performance of this Agreement; and

(5) the payment the APM Entities make to the United States pursuant to this Agreement and any payments that the APM Entities may make to Relator, including costs and attorneys' fees are unallowable costs for government contracting purposes and under the Medicare Program, Medicaid Program, TRICARE Program, and Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) (hereinafter referred to as Unallowable Costs).

(b) Future Treatment of Unallowable Costs: Unallowable Costs shall be separately determined and accounted for by the APM Entities, and the APM Entities shall not charge such Unallowable Costs directly or indirectly to any contracts with the United States or any State Medicaid program, or seek payment for such Unallowable Costs through any cost report, cost statement, information statement, or payment request submitted by the APM Entities or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates to the Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, or FEHBP

Programs.

(c) Treatment of Unallowable Costs Previously Submitted for Payment: The APM Entities further agree that within 90 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement it shall identify to applicable Medicare and TRICARE fiscal intermediaries, carriers, and/or contractors, and Medicaid and FEHBP fiscal agents, any Unallowable Costs (as defined in this Paragraph) included in payments previously sought from the United States, or any State Medicaid program, including, but not limited to, payments sought in any cost reports, cost statements, information reports, or payment requests already submitted by the APM Entities or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates, and shall request, and agree, that such cost reports, cost statements, information reports, or payment requests, even if already settled, be adjusted to account for the effect of the inclusion of the Unallowable Costs.

The APM Entities agree that the United States, Wisconsin, or Minnesota, at a minimum, shall be entitled to recoup from the APM Entities any overpayment plus applicable interest and penalties as a result of the inclusion of such Unallowable Costs on previously-submitted cost reports, information reports, cost statements, or requests for payment. Any payments due after the adjustments have been made shall be paid to the United States and/or Wisconsin and/or Minnesota pursuant to the direction of the Department of Justice and/or the affected agencies. The United States, Wisconsin, and Minnesota reserve their rights to disagree with any calculations submitted by the APM Entities or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates on the effect of inclusion of Unallowable Costs (as defined in this Paragraph) on the APM Entities or any of their subsidiaries or affiliates' cost reports, cost statements, or

information reports.

(d) Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of the rights of the United States to audit, examine, or re-examine the APM Entities' books and records to determine that no Unallowable Costs have been claimed in accordance with the provisions of this Paragraph.

18. This Agreement is intended to be for the benefit of the Parties only. The Parties do not release any claims against any other person or entity, except to the extent provided for in Paragraph 19 (waiver of beneficiaries paragraph) below.

19. The APM Entities agree that they waive and shall not seek payment for any of the health care billings covered by this Agreement from any health care beneficiaries or their parents, sponsors, legally responsible individuals, or third party payors based upon the claims defined as Covered Conduct.

20. If within 91 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement or of any payment made under this Agreement, the APM Entities commence, or a third party commences, any case, proceeding, or other action under any law relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, or relief of debtors (a) seeking to have any order for relief of the APM Entities' debts, or seeking to adjudicate the APM Entities as bankrupt or insolvent; or (b) seeking appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian, or other similar official for the APM Entities or for all or any substantial part of the APM Entities' assets, the APM Entities agree as follows:

(a) The APM Entities' obligations under this Agreement may not be avoided pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 547, and the APM Entities shall not argue or otherwise take the position in any such case, proceeding, or action that: (i) the APM Entities' obligations under this Agreement may be avoided under 11 U.S.C. § 547; (ii) the APM Entities' obligations under this Agreement may be avoided because the APM Entities were insolvent at the time this Agreement was entered into, or became insolvent as a result of the payment made to the United States; or (iii) the mutual promises, covenants, and obligations set forth in this Agreement do not constitute a contemporaneous exchange for new value given to the APM Entities.

(b) If the APM Entities' obligations under this Agreement are avoided for any reason, including, but not limited to, through the exercise of a trustee's avoidance powers under the Bankruptcy Code, the United States and/or Wisconsin and/or Minnesota, at each one's sole option, may rescind the releases in this Agreement and bring any civil and/or administrative claim, action, or proceeding against the APM Entities for the claims that would otherwise be covered by the releases provided in Paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. In such event, the APM Entities agree that (i) any such claims, actions, or proceedings brought by the United States are not subject to an "automatic stay" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) as a result of the action, case, or proceedings described in the first clause of this Paragraph, and the APM Entities shall not argue or otherwise contend that the United States' and/or Wisconsin's and/or Minnesota's claims, actions, or proceedings are subject to an automatic stay; (ii) the APM Entities shall not plead, argue, or otherwise raise any defenses under the theories of statute of limitations, laches, estoppel, or similar theories, to any such civil or administrative claims, actions, or proceeding that are brought by the United States and/or Wisconsin and/or Minnesota within 60 calendar days of written notification to the APM Entities that the releases have been rescinded pursuant to this Paragraph, except to the extent such defenses were available on May 16, 2013; and (iii) the United States and/or Wisconsin and/or Minnesota has a valid claim against the APM Entities in the amount of $142 million and the United States and/or Wisconsin and/or Minnesota may pursue its claim in the case, action, or proceeding referenced in the first clause of this Paragraph, as well as in any other case, action, or proceeding.

(c) The APM Entities acknowledge that their agreements in this Paragraph are provided in exchange for valuable consideration provided in this Agreement.

21. Upon receipt of the payment described in Paragraph 1 above, the Parties shall promptly sign and file in the Civil Action a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal of the Civil Action pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1). Furthermore, such dismissal shall be:

(a) With prejudice as to the Relator, the United States, Minnesota, and Wisconsin with respect to the Covered Conduct, pursuant to and consistent with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

(b) Without prejudice to the United States, Minnesota, and Wisconsin as to all other claims; and

22. Each Party shall bear its own legal and other costs incurred in connection with this matter, including the preparation and performance of this Agreement.

23. Each party and signatory to this Agreement represents that it freely and voluntarily enters in to this Agreement without any degree of duress or compulsion.

24. This Agreement is governed by the laws of the United States. The exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any dispute relating to this Agreement is the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. For purposes of construing this Agreement, this Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted by all Parties to this Agreement and shall not, therefore, be construed against any Party for that reason in any subsequent dispute.

25. This Agreement constitutes the complete agreement between the Parties. This Agreement may not be amended except by written consent of the Parties.

26. The undersigned counsel represent and warrant that they are fully authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of the persons and entities indicated below.

27. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which constitutes an original and all of which constitute one and the same Agreement.

28. This Agreement is binding on the APM Entities' successors, transferees, heirs,and assigns.

29. This Agreement is binding on Relator's successors, transferees, heirs, and assigns.

30. All parties consent to the United States', Wisconsin's, and Minnesota's disclosure of this Agreement, and information about this Agreement, to the public.

31. This Agreement is effective on the date of signature of the last signatory to the Agreement (Effective Date of this Agreement). Facsimiles and electronic transmissions of signatures shall constitute acceptable, binding signatures for purposes of this Agreement.

APM Receivables LLC collection lawsuits

2023-07-05T21:56:00.006-04:00

Wisconsin Small Claims Case Caption	Case Number	Date filed	County
APM Receivables, LLC vs. VICTORIA PETERS	2023SC017207	6/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Victor T Day	2023SC017206	6/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michele L Wozniak	2023SC017205	6/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Montell Giles	2023SC017204	6/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary Ann Jones	2023SC017203	6/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lara B Pulkowski	2023SC017202	6/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. WENDY CHILDERS	2023SC017196	6/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michele M Krimmer	2023SC017193	6/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James p Jones	2023SC017070	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joan Anderson	2023SC017065	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian Amick	2023SC017060	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christopher A Roach	2023SC017056	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BERTHA M EVANS	2023SC017050	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Edwin D Nunez Pagin	2023SC017048	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dominique Pinkston	2023SC017043	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carl D Smith	2023SC017042	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dalia Gamboa	2023SC017041	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Clara Koschnitzke-Hoffmann	2023SC017040	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. FRANCISCO GUTIERREZ	2023SC017039	6/29/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica E Hensel	2023SC001027	6/29/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. THOMAS W HARDER	2023SC001025	6/29/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mishell Draeger	2023SC000594	6/28/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ruby E Klement	2023SC000586	6/28/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carl A Wendt	2023SC000780	6/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leslie S Cross	2023SC000773	6/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tracie Anderson	2023SC000764	6/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John V Kressbach III	2023SC000763	6/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda L Martinez	2023SC000350	6/27/2023	Juneau
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TINA R DIAMOND	2023SC002968	6/26/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey M Burdette	2023SC002967	6/26/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. George A HERNANDEZ	2023SC002954	6/26/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TINA R DIAMOND	2023SC001734	6/26/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela J Busalacchi	2023SC000758	6/26/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra J Olsen	2023SC000180	6/26/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James G Blanchar	2023SC003721	6/23/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROBERT DRONE	2023SC001596	6/23/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cindy Zallar	2023SC001246	6/23/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shontea L Drone	2023SC001240	6/23/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. COLLEEN PATTA	2023SC001234	6/23/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine Winscher	2023SC001232	6/23/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GERALD N. VOIGT	2023SC001566	6/22/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JEREMY R. BREUNIG	2023SC000701	6/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MATTHEW R. OTTO	2023SC000696	6/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda L Hetchler	2023SC002323	6/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa J Weber	2023SC002321	6/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James M Leiting	2023SC002309	6/20/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gregory C Dexter	2023SC002286	6/20/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kymberlea A Richtmyre	2023SC002280	6/20/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Chad E Mullikin	2023SC002261	6/20/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JULIE M. SELLE	2023SC001692	6/20/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KEVIN P. BURNS	2023SC001691	6/20/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRIAN P. BRACHMANN	2023SC000734	6/19/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Katie S Hafenstein	2023SC000714	6/19/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lawrence J Culton	2023SC000387	6/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Annette M Kavel	2023SC000687	6/14/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Calvin Shaver	2023SC000678	6/14/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARTIN LIBORIO PENA	2023SC000706	6/13/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LESLIE W. DUENING	2023SC000702	6/13/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. EDWARD WOOD	2023SC001781	6/6/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DEBORAH R. SEXTON	2023SC001776	6/6/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JEFFREY A. CARETTA	2023SC001772	6/6/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RICHARD C. SANTO II	2023SC001771	6/6/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sharon M Asher Diaz	2023SC000680	5/30/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert W Grayburn	2023SC000679	5/30/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia A Hurley	2023SC013660	5/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BART WIGGENHORN	2023SC001886	5/26/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roger S Filtz	2023SC000863	5/26/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Julie A Allen	2023SC001866	5/25/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laura L Harding	2023SC001858	5/25/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHLEEN LUEPKE	2023SC001855	5/25/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LORI J. GROHMAN	2023SC001064	5/25/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LINDA SCHUNK	2023SC001060	5/25/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SIERRA L. LECHER	2023SC001058	5/25/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. REBECCA FALE	2023SC001057	5/25/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SCOTT A. EQUITZ	2023SC001056	5/25/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BART WIGGENHORN	2023SC000654	5/25/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. STEPHANIE SPANNBAUER	2023SC000652	5/25/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SHANE A. BROWNING	2023SC000651	5/25/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JEAN H. SHEFKY	2023SC000650	5/25/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CAROLYN A. RODE	2023SC000645	5/25/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHRISTOPHER J. GSCHWIND	2023SC000575	5/25/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables LLC vs. Jennifer L Kocelko	2023SC001303	5/24/2023	Rock
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vincent Gandolfo	2023SC000616	5/24/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott D Thompson	2023SC000484	5/24/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL GARM	2023SC013192	5/23/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARIA RIOS	2023SC000147	5/23/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TIMOTHY K. OESTREICH	2023SC000318	5/19/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sandra J Krachey	2023SC001603	5/18/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Larry J Coshenet	2023SC001595	5/18/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alisha Konzel	2023SC001588	5/18/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LARRY FALAT	2023SC002241	5/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Chad Zoeller	2023SC002233	5/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan M Klein	2023SC002231	5/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen Kalupa	2023SC001853	5/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rebecca L Seabrook	2023SC001851	5/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael G Zabler	2023SC001849	5/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kevin Belshaw	2023SC001840	5/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pattee A Marks Graves	2023SC001827	5/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Meredith A Olsen	2023SC000313	5/17/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Constance M Tobin	2023SC000303	5/17/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine M Scharff	2023SC000275	5/17/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eufemia Garcia	2023SC012507	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Maribel Lopez	2023SC012506	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KENNETH L WALKER	2023SC012505	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kerry A Howard	2023SC012504	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Douglas W Lange	2023SC012503	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brit M Williams Van Klooster	2023SC012502	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alexus R Hentz	2023SC012500	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary Draginis	2023SC012498	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shelley M Crawford	2023SC012496	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Candace k Little	2023SC012494	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tijuana P Jefferson	2023SC012493	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christina A Young	2023SC012492	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Annette Bailey	2023SC012491	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rosemarie Knoblauch	2023SC012490	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nancy M Sundberg	2023SC012489	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kenneth L Walker	2023SC012488	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristin M Henneman	2023SC012487	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jay T Strande	2023SC012486	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard E Gales	2023SC012485	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ignatius F Checkai	2023SC012484	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janet L Ream	2023SC012483	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cheryl A Kreuser	2023SC012482	5/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LYNDA M. RAMIREZ	2023SC002895	5/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANTHONY D. ECKEL	2023SC002890	5/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AUBREY E. NEWBERRY	2023SC002889	5/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GERALD R. ERICKSON	2023SC002887	5/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JULIE A. RANDA	2023SC002885	5/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TERRI L. COMSTOCK	2023SC002884	5/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. OLIVIA A. ZAHALKA	2023SC002882	5/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TERRYL SANTKUYL	2023SC001332	5/16/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GLORIA K. MADRID	2023SC001319	5/16/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRIGITTE r. LEROY	2023SC001317	5/16/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elijah D High	2023SC000398	5/16/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carolyn Jensen	2023SC000070	5/16/2023	Taylor
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill Lucchesi	2023SC012377	5/12/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeremy M Larsen	2023SC012375	5/12/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DENNIS KRAJEWSKI	2023SC000238	5/12/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gary Niblett	2023SC000549	5/10/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Krista L Dukelow	2023SC001707	5/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rick Smul	2023SC001703	5/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gary R Flom	2023SC001702	5/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TINA M. SCHILLEMAN	2023SC001189	5/9/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John R Reifsnider	2023SC000533	5/8/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Troy D Hoeppner	2023SC000532	5/8/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CAMARIE MORRIS	2023SC001648	5/4/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James R Reinert	2023SC001145	5/4/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Judith A Olson	2023SC001144	5/4/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia A Carriveau	2023SC000215	5/4/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James L Boucher	2023SC000214	5/4/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda M Burke	2023SC000213	5/4/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wendy D Collins	2023SC001718	5/2/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael J Olson	2023SC001413	5/2/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa M Gregg	2023SC001412	5/2/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anne E Clark	2023SC001411	5/2/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amanda Spaay	2023SC001410	5/2/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica A Ronning	2023SC001396	5/2/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lawrence J Weissgerber	2023SC000256	5/2/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy R Thomas	2023SC001405	5/1/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James H McNeal	2023SC001395	5/1/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly M Smail	2023SC000562	5/1/2023	Washington
APM Receivables LLC vs. Tamara M Huppert	2023SC000396	5/1/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott C Savignac	2023SC001580	4/28/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANN M. KOSCIESZA	2023SC000858	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHRYN L. MCMASTERS	2023SC000855	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRADLEY C. FYKE	2023SC000853	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SHAWNA A. BANKER	2023SC000852	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JOE STOVER	2023SC000850	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BETH A. ADAM DIXON	2023SC000849	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LORI S. LAACK	2023SC000848	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RACHAEL S. DUCHOW	2023SC000846	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ASHLEY BEHR	2023SC000843	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHRISTOPHER E. KREUTER	2023SC000842	4/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ariel J Ippolito	2023SC000723	4/28/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dennis R Crisman	2023SC000530	4/28/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROBERT F PEZZI	2023SC011064	4/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Louis J Marshall	2023SC001568	4/27/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian D Bartz	2023SC001554	4/27/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine S Barnes	2023SC001553	4/27/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jerry Siegle	2023SC001551	4/27/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deangelo J Roberts	2023SC001548	4/27/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cynthia A Nelsen	2023SC000545	4/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tyler Morrison	2023SC000542	4/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Steven M Dishaw	2023SC000539	4/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer M Getts	2023SC000538	4/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deangelo J Roberts	2023SC000534	4/27/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gloriane Kreklow	2023SC000390	4/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brenda L Kracht	2023SC000388	4/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. George C Lipske	2023SC000033	4/27/2023	Iron
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Harold L Jackson	2023SC010657	4/25/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL SCHNEIDER	2023SC010651	4/25/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David P Wodkowski	2023SC010650	4/25/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROBERT S ANDERSON	2023SC010642	4/25/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PIERRE WHITEHORN	2023SC010641	4/25/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elmedin Glibic	2023SC000513	4/25/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jonathan S Pass	2023SC000502	4/25/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DANIEL SMITH	2023SC000498	4/25/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennilyn A Bosselman	2023SC000497	4/25/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronald J Engel	2023SC000495	4/25/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL SCHNEIDER	2023SC000353	4/25/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel B Goodell	2023SC000252	4/25/2023	Juneau
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason R Lester	2023SC000228	4/25/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dustin W White Jr	2023SC000162	4/25/2023	Green
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David P Wodkowski	2023SC010486	4/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tina L Green	2023SC001555	4/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sherman R Allen	2023SC000498	4/24/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra A Snyder	2023SC000497	4/24/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary A Vogel	2023SC000496	4/24/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelly J Glover	2023SC000247	4/24/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patty Collier	2023SC000245	4/24/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wayne Ermis	2023SC000244	4/24/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey P Kwaterski	2023SC000163	4/24/2023	Door
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHRISTOPHER J. GSCHWIND	2023SC000100	4/24/2023	Richland
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David J Chmiel	2023SC000061	4/24/2023	Rusk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John M Toms	2023SC010278	4/21/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Doris M Hintz	2023SC001549	4/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vivian J DeGrave	2023SC001543	4/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela M Stewart	2023SC001534	4/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John M Molenda	2023SC001526	4/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brenda F Sears	2023SC001510	4/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joseph T Sheppard	2023SC001507	4/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristin G Matson	2023SC001506	4/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Priscilla d Munoz	2023SC001503	4/21/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Norman J Spiegelhoff	2023SC001300	4/21/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROBERT NASH	2023SC001296	4/21/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JENNY NYREEN	2023SC001043	4/21/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TIMOTHY K. OESTREICH	2023SC001037	4/21/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tedd A Vorbroker	2023SC010198	4/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARY BOYD	2023SC000384	4/19/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DANIELLE SOUSEK	2023SC000255	4/19/2023	Shawano
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARIO MAGGIORANA	2023SC001053	4/18/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ALIYA XIONG	2023SC001050	4/18/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. HEATHER J. HANDSCHKE	2023SC001048	4/18/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DOUGLAS F. PURDY	2023SC001045	4/18/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JOSEPH L. PALMER	2023SC001041	4/18/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DOUGLAS E. WYNBOOM	2023SC001040	4/18/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela L Grady	2023SC009674	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael W Brown	2023SC009672	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lori D Schulz	2023SC009669	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lawanda E Jackson	2023SC009668	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Simone Toombs	2023SC009667	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Steven T Strzyzewski	2023SC009666	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tiny M Silas	2023SC009665	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Marilyn Cruz	2023SC009664	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sandra A Buchholtz	2023SC009663	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joel D Lundberg	2023SC009662	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Saundra K Polinske	2023SC009661	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. THOMAS P BACHMANN	2023SC009660	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NICOLE CORTEZ	2023SC009659	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wilma Mcgee	2023SC009658	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robin Y Dansby	2023SC009657	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael P Ciardo	2023SC009656	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAMES K THEURICH	2023SC009655	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Theresa Mobley	2023SC009654	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Luz Espinosa	2023SC009653	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tina Rothe	2023SC009652	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Megan Ewert	2023SC009651	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Willie B Davis	2023SC009650	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristin C Weber	2023SC009649	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Qyinn Applin	2023SC009648	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lori A Stratman	2023SC009647	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RICHARD JUSTUS	2023SC009646	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary L Johnson	2023SC009645	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Luis E Vieyra	2023SC009644	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly Altemus	2023SC009642	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tracy M Sternig	2023SC009640	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Teresa Trione	2023SC009639	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sheleagh A Sawdy	2023SC009638	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelly Graf	2023SC009637	4/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deondre Ransom	2023SC009585	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deborah L WALKER	2023SC009583	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jenny M Bucholz	2023SC009580	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill S Bean	2023SC009578	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey R Cyganiak	2023SC009577	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jaeniene T Garvey	2023SC009575	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janet L Bakalarski	2023SC009574	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Hilda M Corbino Torres	2023SC009573	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gerald Szymanski	2023SC009571	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dwight S Kirksey	2023SC009569	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dionisio Moyet JR	2023SC009566	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jaime S Chmiel	2023SC009564	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gabrielle Cervera	2023SC009563	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Crystal A Bogan	2023SC009560	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carmelo Torres	2023SC009558	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Adam Rumpel	2023SC009554	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carl S Clarke	2023SC009552	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Darnell L Johnson	2023SC009550	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carol A Tangen	2023SC009548	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. April L Johnsen Miller	2023SC009547	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carolyn J Jackson	2023SC009544	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bonnie B Wiesmueller	2023SC009541	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ALFREIDA J CASTERLOW	2023SC009539	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debora A Halliburton	2023SC009538	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony O Williams	2023SC009537	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brenda A Najieb	2023SC009536	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bridgette A Schulz	2023SC009535	4/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christina L Roman	2023SC001376	4/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donna M Balistrieri	2023SC001369	4/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Todd D Gartzke	2023SC001367	4/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle M Stephenson	2023SC001340	4/13/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NATALIE RASMUSSEN	2023SC000321	4/13/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David Regenauer	2023SC009181	4/12/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammie Deloy	2023SC000433	4/12/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristine L Taulbut	2023SC000426	4/12/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paul M Seewald	2023SC000422	4/12/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronald R Burrows	2023SC000142	4/12/2023	Adams
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Craig A Cetnarowski	2023SC009047	4/11/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SHAYLA GRAF	2023SC001626	4/11/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LAURA L. BROWN	2023SC001623	4/11/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TAMMY J. HARTSTERN	2023SC001618	4/11/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARIO M. CRUZ	2023SC001617	4/11/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRANDEN S. BOYE	2023SC001614	4/11/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARY A. ALBERTS	2023SC001611	4/11/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. THOMAS B. HAZEN	2023SC001609	4/11/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LONA M. COMPTON	2023SC001608	4/11/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony French	2023SC001126	4/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela D Blasi	2023SC001124	4/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRAD A. GOLEMGESKI	2023SC000460	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHLEEN A. AUDI HUCKER	2023SC000459	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KIM M. VANDERJAGT	2023SC000458	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARK CARDINAL	2023SC000457	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRIAN R. FABER	2023SC000455	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TERRI L. PARCHIM	2023SC000453	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SUE A. LLOYD	2023SC000452	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL METRUSIAS	2023SC000451	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DANIEL R. POLER	2023SC000447	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DANIEL ELLENBECKER	2023SC000445	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BONNIE L. FITZWILLIAMS	2023SC000444	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ELIZABETH A. TUREK	2023SC000442	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KRISTIN E. SPAGNOLA	2023SC000441	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael J Ward	2023SC000436	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melissa House	2023SC000435	4/6/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL KIRMSE	2023SC000250	4/6/2023	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. F Rhodes	2023SC008409	4/4/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tedd A Vorbroker	2023SC000890	4/3/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra A Bronson	2023SC000889	4/3/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William J Hoffman	2023SC000888	4/3/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amber J Ross	2023SC000886	4/3/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Steven A Pawlak	2023SC008213	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patrice Z Flowers	2023SC008211	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lashanya R Easley Onukwugha	2023SC008210	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Luis A Perez	2023SC008209	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan B Wright	2023SC008208	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sonya J Mitchell	2023SC008207	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy M Rochester	2023SC008206	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Randy J Wachniak	2023SC008205	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda R Newman	2023SC008204	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard Hayes MD	2023SC008203	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paul Premetz	2023SC008192	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roy A Gonzales	2023SC008159	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Latona Massingale	2023SC008158	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard H Franklin	2023SC008157	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tom Lupinski	2023SC008155	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laura B Kalenuik	2023SC008154	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa M Frahm	2023SC008152	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Norma L Romero	2023SC008149	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sheila T Maldonado	2023SC008147	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Najib M Mohamed	2023SC008140	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wendy K Wilder	2023SC008138	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vixay Keopanhya	2023SC008136	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Terrance Trammell	2023SC008135	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Perry Bell	2023SC008132	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Verna May Taylor	2023SC008130	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon Patrick	2023SC008129	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristopher K Zellmann	2023SC008127	3/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer M Bohme	2023SC001234	3/31/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dena W Kassees	2023SC001232	3/31/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Judith A Wagner	2023SC001231	3/31/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Stephen P Winiecki	2023SC001229	3/31/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott C Romero	2023SC000883	3/31/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Marilyn A Timm	2023SC000874	3/31/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicole A Laabs	2023SC000872	3/31/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia A LeDuc	2023SC000871	3/31/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RAYMOND B SHEPARD	2023SC000868	3/31/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shane F Kelsall	2023SC000867	3/31/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael J Kangas	2023SC000864	3/31/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Madeleine R Ramsey	2023SC000862	3/31/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables LLC vs. Jennifer A Dieter	2023SC000822	3/31/2023	Rock
APM Receivables LLC vs. Dayla Poradek	2023SC000821	3/31/2023	Rock
APM Receivables LLC vs. Lucas J Boyle	2023SC000820	3/31/2023	Rock
APM Receivables LLC vs. Brian Gavin	2023SC000813	3/31/2023	Rock
APM Receivables LLC vs. Trina D Dipiazza	2023SC000809	3/31/2023	Rock
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Craig S Reich	2023SC000578	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jamie D Burger	2023SC000576	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Logan M Anderson	2023SC000574	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carlos M Maldonado	2023SC000573	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ashley M Frank	2023SC000572	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Larry L Dassow	2023SC000571	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Allen W Abitz	2023SC000570	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelly E Shanak	2023SC000566	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cheryl A Frank	2023SC000561	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melissa D Kaufman	2023SC000558	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Delmar A Bielen	2023SC000556	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Charles Hanson	2023SC000551	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Misty L Cisewski	2023SC000550	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa M Fischer	2023SC000549	3/31/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Virginia Krause	2023SC000421	3/31/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kody J Jerge	2023SC000420	3/31/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carrie A Wick	2023SC000419	3/31/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ELIZABETH K LESLIE	2023SC000418	3/31/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANNA BIRO	2023SC000417	3/31/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Junior Weiss	2023SC000416	3/31/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brandon G Hebert	2023SC000415	3/31/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian Melvin	2023SC000202	3/31/2023	Juneau
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Billy Luke	2023SC000200	3/31/2023	Juneau
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronald C Wahlen	2023SC000180	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sandra L Jones	2023SC000179	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle L McGregor	2023SC000178	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John P Quindt	2023SC000177	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KRISTY M KAYE	2023SC000176	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Allen B Chitwood	2023SC000174	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William D Lawson	2023SC000173	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Terry J Hudson	2023SC000167	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Candy Kangas	2023SC000166	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Betty Jane Baranczyk	2023SC000165	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas H Carmody	2023SC000161	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey J Kafka	2023SC000160	3/31/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kathleen Merrison	2023SC000084	3/31/2023	Iowa
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tommy L Mack	2023SC000081	3/31/2023	Green Lake
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly A Schiefelbein	2023SC000080	3/31/2023	Green Lake
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Casey J Sargent	2023SC000070	3/31/2023	Lafayette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATIE FLANAGAN	2023SC008002	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dexter D Williams	2023SC008001	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Crystal P Dorfner	2023SC008000	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica M Pielsnik	2023SC007999	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Genevieve R Liss	2023SC007998	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Derek J Nitecki	2023SC007997	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kesha Perkins	2023SC007996	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Edward Williams	2023SC007995	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen S Kowahl	2023SC007994	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janet Brozovich	2023SC007993	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jesse White	2023SC007992	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Antonia Guilani	2023SC007991	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Barry W Bahe	2023SC007990	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brock A Beal	2023SC007989	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason Kaminski	2023SC007988	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gaynell M Moore	2023SC007985	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Diana J Smith	2023SC007983	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Danielle Marie Bittner	2023SC007982	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Harriet Williams	2023SC007981	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Hector Dipre	2023SC007980	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GREG MILLER	2023SC007978	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David J Kucza	2023SC007975	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DARRYL HEGNER	2023SC007974	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Barbara Preston	2023SC007972	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Abby L Leszczynski	2023SC007971	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Blanchie McClain	2023SC007970	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kathryn E McCool	2023SC007969	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dana Wojczak	2023SC007968	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CATRINA TAYLOR	2023SC007966	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Arthur Case	2023SC007965	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bobby L King	2023SC007964	3/30/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dennisha M Becker	2023SC001218	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel J Kane	2023SC001217	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan M DIETZ	2023SC001216	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William Flynn	2023SC001215	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Barry Melloch	2023SC001212	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL A BLAND	2023SC001211	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PAMELA K REESE	2023SC001210	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melissa A Roldan	2023SC001208	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Adam Lopez	2023SC001206	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TIMOTHY P BEDNAREK	2023SC001205	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pierson Katula	2023SC001204	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Stefani K Bruno	2023SC001203	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SARAH CRESSEY	2023SC001202	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon L Roberson	2023SC001201	3/30/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey Grady	2023SC000858	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kenneth C Guyette Sr	2023SC000857	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica M Haack	2023SC000852	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Katherine Marie Brandenburg	2023SC000850	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer L Schultz	2023SC000849	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jonathan R Gorges	2023SC000847	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donna M Fink	2023SC000842	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Emily N Bradley	2023SC000841	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JEFFREY BAAKE	2023SC000840	3/30/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. WILLIAM KUEHL	2023SC000650	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DARLENE D. ZIMMERMAN	2023SC000648	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GARY PRAHL	2023SC000646	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AMANDA K. MLINAZ	2023SC000644	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NOELENE M. PAULSBERG	2023SC000643	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHANTEL A. DELEON	2023SC000642	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SARAH R. OTTMAN	2023SC000641	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BLAIR A. MUELLER	2023SC000640	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DEBBRA GORR	2023SC000639	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ELIZABETH A. BUSTO	2023SC000638	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JENNIFER S. SHEPPARD	2023SC000637	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TODD C. GELDREICH	2023SC000636	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHELLE RODRIGUES	2023SC000635	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TRAVIS J. MEYER	2023SC000634	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PAUL A. MCGOVERN	2023SC000629	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NICOLE SMITH	2023SC000628	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MEREDITH P. MARTINEZ	2023SC000627	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANNETTE KOZICKE	2023SC000626	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SARIN SOKHAY	2023SC000625	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JESSICA A. CONNOUR	2023SC000624	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAMIE M. SKRUBE	2023SC000623	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROBERT L. LONGWAY	2023SC000621	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. HENRY S. LEWIS	2023SC000620	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LINDSEY A. WELCHER	2023SC000619	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SANDRA K. MCHUGH	2023SC000618	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GREGORY H. WAGNER	2023SC000615	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MELISSA YOST	2023SC000614	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHAD R. VANNES	2023SC000613	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANGELA FINK	2023SC000612	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CONSTANCE RICHARDSON	2023SC000611	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BERNADETTE N. ALBOURAS	2023SC000610	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JODY L. DAVIDSON	2023SC000609	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JOEL S. HAMMEN	2023SC000608	3/30/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dennisha M Becker	2023SC000412	3/30/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas M Osinski	2023SC000408	3/30/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia A Morris	2023SC000404	3/30/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DANIEL COLLVER	2023SC000103	3/30/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DONALD L. HOPPA	2023SC000102	3/30/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Aaliyah A Munoz	2023SC001211	3/29/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Erika A Williams	2023SC001190	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KIMBERLY HALL	2023SC001189	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CATHERINE A GAERTNER	2023SC001188	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CATHLEEN M JONES	2023SC001187	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa Maynard	2023SC001186	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DEAN BRAZAITIS	2023SC001184	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHAD M WARNKE	2023SC001183	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. HEIDI LANGE	2023SC001181	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Beverly J Miller	2023SC001180	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHERYL A CHANEY	2023SC001179	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AMY J JACKSON	2023SC001178	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CURTIS J FORTIN	2023SC001177	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony L Moss	2023SC001176	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Andrew D Webster	2023SC001173	3/29/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RICKY GENSCH	2023SC000633	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CAROL STECK	2023SC000632	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NICOLETTE ROBINSON	2023SC000631	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CYNTHIA L. REICHGELD	2023SC000606	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROBERT J. STAHL	2023SC000605	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DEENA BLACK	2023SC000604	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RONDA M. MCMULLEN	2023SC000603	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AMANDA L. SCHNEIDER	2023SC000602	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GUSTAVE K. BENSON	2023SC000601	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHLEEN M. WESTERMAN	2023SC000600	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARY L. GARDNER	2023SC000598	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. COLLEEN M. HOGUE	2023SC000597	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. FRANK M. ANZIA	2023SC000596	3/29/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah S Levit	2023SC000541	3/29/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carol A Stauss	2023SC000396	3/29/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey A Elliott	2023SC000395	3/29/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Andrew M Martin	2023SC000392	3/29/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KEVIN J ARMOUR	2023SC000277	3/29/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christopher Nicolai	2023SC000178	3/29/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brenda Keuter	2023SC000177	3/29/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Allison L Mattix	2023SC000176	3/29/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Matthew W Martin	2023SC000175	3/29/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica M Berntgen	2023SC000172	3/29/2023	Grant
BCG Equities, LLC vs. April Chandler	2023SC007733	3/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jaqueetta M Cameron	2023SC001024	3/28/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ashley A Radtke	2023SC000828	3/28/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cayla J Moses	2023SC000827	3/28/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bruce L Deason	2023SC000825	3/28/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela Lynn Peterson	2023SC000824	3/28/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christopher A Paessler	2023SC000822	3/28/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CAROL STEVENSON	2023SC000081	3/28/2023	Richland
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debbie M Davis	2023SC007624	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Hector F Hernandez	2023SC007623	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Marilyn D Wallace	2023SC007621	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elizabeth M Christiansen	2023SC007620	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon L Dailey	2023SC007618	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jose A Diaz Sanchez	2023SC007612	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lori I Cavanaugh	2023SC007610	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Maria I Warpechowski	2023SC007607	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Maria C Jimenez	2023SC007606	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jerry Jophlin	2023SC007605	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paul A Lisinski	2023SC007604	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel N Mankarious	2023SC007603	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael A David	2023SC007602	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William Schwaab	2023SC007601	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DEBRA EDGE	2023SC007599	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda I Christensen	2023SC007598	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle Dawn Smars	2023SC007597	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eleisa Govain	2023SC007596	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Luke N Schlosser	2023SC007595	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shiquita R Perry	2023SC007594	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason J Bower	2023SC007593	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra Heisler	2023SC007592	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary Elliott	2023SC007591	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jayme Miller	2023SC007590	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David J VanGorden	2023SC007589	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tinamarie Aljazzar	2023SC007588	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janell B Diel	2023SC007587	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill Ozanick	2023SC007586	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Raynard P Beard	2023SC007585	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elliot D Roseman	2023SC007583	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dana L Lessila Ugan	2023SC007582	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roy C Brown	2023SC007581	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elizabeth Cortez	2023SC007580	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sukhjitpal S Dhillon	2023SC007579	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert C Simmons	2023SC007578	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deanna R Robins	2023SC007577	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kyle Farney	2023SC007576	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda E Schultz	2023SC007575	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sharnissa L Toney	2023SC007574	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dennis E Neuzil	2023SC007573	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sammie L Harris	2023SC007571	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rochelle D Landingham	2023SC007570	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey G Bersch	2023SC007569	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Truvoy M Sampson	2023SC007567	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janet K Bandkowski	2023SC007566	3/27/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MELISSA L. SHELTON	2023SC001321	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROGER D. NIEMISTO	2023SC001320	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TRAVES W. COPPOCK	2023SC001319	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TONY L. MCFARLIN	2023SC001318	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. WILLIAM RICHARDS	2023SC001317	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JOSHUA J. JABLONSKI	2023SC001316	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CYNTHIA JEAN PRUE	2023SC001315	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BARBARA A. LEWIS	2023SC001314	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHRISTY L. FATLA	2023SC001313	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARLO M. BARNETT	2023SC001312	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LYNN M. RICKERT STEENO	2023SC001311	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAMES T. ALLEN	2023SC001310	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CODY J. WAHL	2023SC001309	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JOYCE R. MOORE	2023SC001308	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL J. LEITERMAN	2023SC001307	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JODIE SIGL	2023SC001306	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. REBECCA L. GILBERTSON	2023SC001305	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SARA A. PONFIL	2023SC001304	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. IGNACIO OROZCO	2023SC001303	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AMY J. NOWAKOWSKI	2023SC001302	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANNETTA K. HOPPE	2023SC001301	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROBERT P. CRABBE	2023SC001300	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROBERT A. YERUSKI	2023SC001299	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LISA A. FRANCKEN	2023SC001298	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CAROLYN J. WASIELEWSKI	2023SC001297	3/27/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amanda S Kornfehl	2023SC000391	3/27/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alyssa B Wilkie	2023SC000389	3/27/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William C Schneider	2023SC000388	3/27/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda S Rock	2023SC000387	3/27/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tracy Brown	2023SC000384	3/27/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Frances Stoehr	2023SC000382	3/27/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon A Diettinger	2023SC000380	3/27/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melanie A Stenz	2023SC000378	3/27/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mandy L Pientka	2023SC000326	3/27/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Andrew R Poast	2023SC000300	3/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KRISTI A PETITT AKA Kristi Evans	2023SC000299	3/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela Salewsky	2023SC000189	3/27/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Matilda J Schieffer	2023SC000188	3/27/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paul Moncher	2023SC000187	3/27/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amanda P Behnke	2023SC000186	3/27/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Charles A Swisher	2023SC000185	3/27/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tracy L Ellie	2023SC000184	3/27/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy L Martin	2023SC000183	3/27/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alan J Farley	2023SC000116	3/27/2023	Door
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine M Ferris	2023SC000072	3/27/2023	Kewaunee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Akim Islami	2023SC007526	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. April O S Walton	2023SC007518	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carolyn C McKenzie	2023SC007515	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carmen Gehlhaar	2023SC007512	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David F Bolda	2023SC007510	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Barbara A Wolf	2023SC007509	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Betty J Jones	2023SC007508	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Billy J Ingram	2023SC007507	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brenda J Owens Winters	2023SC007506	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AMANDA WOODS	2023SC007504	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian P Bulmahn	2023SC007501	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony T Karshna	2023SC007500	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian S Trumbetas	2023SC007498	3/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Traci J Benish	2023SC001181	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gary Allen Woodhull	2023SC001180	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cheryl A Draves	2023SC001179	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christopher M Schkirkie	2023SC001178	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Keith A H McCarthy	2023SC001177	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janelle M Willoughby	2023SC001176	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vicki Barlow	2023SC001175	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer R Kratzer	2023SC001174	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Miriam Santiago	2023SC001172	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eddie C Sloan JR	2023SC001171	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott M Garcia	2023SC001170	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammie J Robinson	2023SC001169	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicole R Heather	2023SC001168	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary J Servantez	2023SC001167	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Twylight Z Hunter	2023SC001166	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Timothy E Wynne	2023SC001165	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David J Mitchell	2023SC001164	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amal Jaber	2023SC001163	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rodney R Payne	2023SC001162	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pamela M Sinclair	2023SC001161	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Willie R Dunn	2023SC001160	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael B Wilkinson	2023SC001159	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Maurice E Thomas	2023SC001158	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jacqueline Seitz	2023SC001157	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Trisha A Nejedly	2023SC001156	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary E Nava	2023SC001155	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen M Shelton	2023SC001154	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kyra Marie Griffin	2023SC001153	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa M Novak	2023SC001152	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jaqueetta M Cameron	2023SC001151	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roger H Hoff	2023SC001150	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sherry L Pilot	2023SC001148	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Samuel C Vasquez	2023SC001147	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Charles J Benedict	2023SC001146	3/24/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARIA CHLEWICKI	2023SC000982	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelvin W Schultz	2023SC000981	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robline Barnes	2023SC000980	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lillian L Aaron	2023SC000979	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia Starrett	2023SC000978	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paul B Wacker	2023SC000977	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL FIFAREK	2023SC000976	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas J Corso	2023SC000975	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Troy L Wohlgefahrt	2023SC000974	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melissa J Pritchett	2023SC000973	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Marisa Nudo	2023SC000972	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roger W Anders	2023SC000971	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Miriam M Barker	2023SC000970	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lois J Freeman	2023SC000969	3/24/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John A Purdy	2023SC001137	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janine K Amaya	2023SC001136	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Annette Torgerson	2023SC001135	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Glenn W Schultz	2023SC001134	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelvin W Schultz	2023SC001133	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cynthia A Parler	2023SC001130	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cheven Jacoby	2023SC001129	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brad Janicek	2023SC001128	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brandyn S Hensley	2023SC001127	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dillon J Etie	2023SC001126	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony Reed	2023SC001125	3/23/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Heidi L Drennen	2023SC000960	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Aunnastazia L Sobye	2023SC000959	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cory Mitchell	2023SC000958	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Aliyya R Jackson	2023SC000957	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jorge Rodriguez	2023SC000956	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deborah J Sims	2023SC000955	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cynthia E Powell	2023SC000954	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer M Babilon	2023SC000953	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Britney M Gomez	2023SC000952	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anna M Merten	2023SC000934	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Arnulfo C Gonzalez	2023SC000933	3/23/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PEGGY L JAMESON	2023SC000039	3/23/2023	Forest
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vickie L Tibbits	2023SC000344	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sheri P Ritter	2023SC000343	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Trevor C Anhalt	2023SC000340	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amber E Young	2023SC000337	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donald D Keller	2023SC000336	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer R Duff	2023SC000335	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lucas Turgeon	2023SC000334	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Andrea Havey	2023SC000333	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. April M Peissig	2023SC000332	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dawn M Nordahl	2023SC000332	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mario Arce	2023SC000331	3/22/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle N Meyer	2023SC000331	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michaela Gleason	2023SC000329	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ADNAN AHMETOVIC	2023SC000327	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jim Bloedorn	2023SC000326	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Steven J Roepke	2023SC000325	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John G Czoske	2023SC000323	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Marsha J Varney	2023SC000322	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shawn F Parker	2023SC000321	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vicki L Spaulding	2023SC000320	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William H Frasch	2023SC000319	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey J Tuschel	2023SC000318	3/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James W Jackson	2023SC000265	3/22/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sandra L Baur	2023SC000264	3/22/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joseph L Cartwright SR	2023SC000263	3/22/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deborah R Hansen	2023SC000221	3/22/2023	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah M Thompson	2023SC000220	3/22/2023	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Samantha L Frenche	2023SC000219	3/22/2023	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CARRIE L SHIPMAN	2023SC000092	3/22/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason P Lain	2023SC000091	3/22/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cynthia M Somers	2023SC000090	3/22/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brett L Leonard	2023SC000051	3/22/2023	Vilas
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia I Brost	2023SC000047	3/22/2023	Taylor
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Diane Firlinger	2023SC007252	3/21/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARK STANLEY PRAZYNSKI	2023SC007251	3/21/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy L Flatt	2023SC000553	3/21/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James W Jackson	2023SC000517	3/21/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David G Mortl	2023SC000368	3/21/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eliza M Kavalkovich	2023SC000065	3/21/2023	Kewaunee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicholas T Creagan	2023SC001066	3/20/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill M Gevaart	2023SC001065	3/20/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Terry E Baker	2023SC001064	3/20/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wesley Manzer	2023SC001063	3/20/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kadishe Qunaj	2023SC000542	3/20/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHERI A. SUENNEN	2023SC000191	3/20/2023	Shawano
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BARBARA A. SEHRES	2023SC000190	3/20/2023	Shawano
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARGARET LOBERGER	2023SC000189	3/20/2023	Shawano
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David Kruger	2023SC000188	3/20/2023	Shawano
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lori A Hoheneder	2023SC000163	3/20/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lameka C Armstrong	2023SC007021	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paterice S Pharm	2023SC007020	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vanita M Jeter	2023SC007019	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael Wall	2023SC007018	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lora A King	2023SC007017	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Regina Lee	2023SC007016	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joseph T Staniszewski	2023SC007015	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Napoleon E Hatten	2023SC007014	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Teddi E Sleck	2023SC007012	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Martha J Hayward	2023SC007011	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leobia Scott	2023SC007009	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan M Kropetz	2023SC007008	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rita A Coker	2023SC007007	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Viola Mccall	2023SC007006	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KAYLA GIBAS	2023SC007005	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda Hammer	2023SC007004	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Theresa A Williamson	2023SC007003	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon M Kavemeier	2023SC007002	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen E Butler	2023SC007001	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vicky Johnson	2023SC007000	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JOSEPH RIEL	2023SC006999	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NICOLE M. CANTWELL	2023SC006998	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kori L Lynch	2023SC006997	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark L Wilson	2023SC006996	3/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PAUL D. FREY	2023SC001704	3/17/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. STEPHANIE M. HEBERT	2023SC001703	3/17/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAMES R. KRAUSE	2023SC001702	3/17/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James T Doughty	2023SC001058	3/17/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Abigail K Lipka Bares	2023SC001057	3/17/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dana Y Dunomes	2023SC001056	3/17/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David W Dable	2023SC001055	3/17/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ALEXANDRIA J CALCAGNINO	2023SC001054	3/17/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Larry H Sipe	2023SC000061	3/17/2023	Kewaunee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra K Gawronski	2023SC006941	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Frances Sherfey	2023SC006939	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cheryl L Hauger	2023SC006937	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHENTL R LUCKETT	2023SC006934	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ismael Farias	2023SC006932	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jackie L Mueller	2023SC006929	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Douglas Carson	2023SC006928	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Erick J Rivera	2023SC006926	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ann E Widen	2023SC006924	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cory Fadden	2023SC006923	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janet M Matte	2023SC006921	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Francis Penaloza	2023SC006919	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donald G Neel	2023SC006918	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elias Payne	2023SC006916	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffery J Beauchamp	2023SC006915	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Heather M Alcaraz	2023SC006913	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Javier Guzman	2023SC006912	3/16/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JEFFREY S. ALLEY	2023SC001684	3/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ELIZABETH M. UHLENBRAUCK	2023SC000736	3/16/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KIM G. ROBINSON	2023SC000735	3/16/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JESSE R. BUMAN	2023SC000734	3/16/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRIDGET A. HINZ	2023SC000733	3/16/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rachell R Frederick	2023SC000350	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deborah M Skalitzky	2023SC000349	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MEGAN FREY	2023SC000348	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Andrea Weber	2023SC000347	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melissa Wheeler	2023SC000346	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Harold J Davis	2023SC000345	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amanda R Suckow	2023SC000344	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robby Szytz	2023SC000343	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel A Laabs	2023SC000342	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jenifer P Clemitus	2023SC000340	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeanine T Behm	2023SC000339	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark K Ertel	2023SC000338	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Heather Schneider	2023SC000333	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra Wiersma	2023SC000331	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donna D Kiekhaefer	2023SC000329	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica L Krukowski	2023SC000327	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Darvin A Seibert	2023SC000325	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Annette M Kavel	2023SC000321	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rebecca S Henne	2023SC000319	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sandra D Zuhlke	2023SC000318	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sara Dunton	2023SC000316	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Todd A Bader	2023SC000314	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William Carl Martin	2023SC000312	3/16/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melanie Gollon	2023SC000179	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer Prietz	2023SC000178	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kayla M D Asto	2023SC000177	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joann M Davis	2023SC000176	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James R Wiskowski	2023SC000175	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark D Wolfgram	2023SC000174	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gary D Duren	2023SC000173	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John R Reifsnider	2023SC000172	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Valerie Smith	2023SC000171	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shawn M Melland	2023SC000170	3/16/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Oleksandr P Shlikhovoi	2023SC000115	3/16/2023	Adams
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Katherine M Rooney	2023SC000114	3/16/2023	Adams
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan M Waller	2023SC000113	3/16/2023	Adams
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shirley L Weldy	2023SC000112	3/16/2023	Adams
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Troy D Ward	2023SC000096	3/16/2023	Calumet
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christina J Richmond	2023SC000095	3/16/2023	Calumet
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lea R Rodriguez Urban	2023SC000094	3/16/2023	Calumet
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sara B Teaster	2023SC000093	3/16/2023	Calumet
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brenda O Longmuir	2023SC000092	3/16/2023	Calumet
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Troy D Hoeppner	2023SC000053	3/16/2023	Ashland
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tracy M Quade	2023SC001185	3/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHRYN E CUMBERLAND	2023SC000294	3/15/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JASMINE MCINTOSH	2023SC006637	3/13/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joseph L Gonzales	2023SC000991	3/13/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shirley A Tutor Perez	2023SC000829	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Margaret Dezee	2023SC000828	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rose M Wick	2023SC000827	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Martha E Hernandez	2023SC000826	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joel A Zamarripa	2023SC000808	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristy L Brown	2023SC000807	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Juan F Cavazos	2023SC000806	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Chad A Zamora	2023SC000805	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen A Norris	2023SC000804	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carl L Busby	2023SC000803	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dianne M Tryban	2023SC000802	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine A Kuhl	2023SC000801	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Barbara L Olle	2023SC000800	3/13/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DENISE S BOSLEY	2023SC000344	3/13/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RACHEL M ERWIN	2023SC000284	3/13/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TAMARA S KELLERMAN	2023SC000283	3/13/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAN L MILLER	2023SC000282	3/13/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DAMON L GOODWIN	2023SC000281	3/13/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANDREW D HOFF	2023SC000225	3/13/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra L Shaw	2023SC000219	3/13/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DAWN M REYNOSA	2023SC000218	3/13/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JOSEPH KLEPPS	2023SC000217	3/13/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel K Riemert	2023SC000162	3/13/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony Wilhelm	2023SC000161	3/13/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Craig A Cetnarowski	2023SC000160	3/13/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelly A Beger	2023SC000159	3/13/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Suzanne R Roller	2023SC000158	3/13/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARY L SADNICK	2023SC000122	3/13/2023	Oneida
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronald Skotnicki	2023SC000032	3/13/2023	Marquette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carol J Behling	2023SC000031	3/13/2023	Marquette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amy J Basler	2023SC000295	3/10/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Damon S Church	2023SC006118	3/9/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARIA HANCE	2023SC000702	3/9/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Timothy Anderson	2023SC005658	3/6/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TIMOTHY ANDERSON	2023SC001486	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TARA C. FERGUSON	2023SC001485	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. INGER L. COUTURE	2023SC001484	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JENNIFER J. ZICKOVICH	2023SC001483	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Catherine Lathrop	2023SC001482	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Autumn H. Kiepert	2023SC001481	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alex L. Redd	2023SC001480	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Theresa Brummel	2023SC001479	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LISA S. GOLDSBY	2023SC001478	3/6/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CLAIRE L MARSH	2023SC000274	3/6/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tanya J Wilson	2023SC000918	3/3/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eliza B Myrick	2023SC005287	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer Glembin	2023SC005286	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Armando Rueda	2023SC005285	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carolyn Hayes	2023SC005283	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Marilyn R Lock	2023SC005282	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly M Hayes	2023SC005281	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nathan F Blattner	2023SC005280	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony J Zarate	2023SC005278	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy L Flatt	2023SC005277	2/28/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cheryl A Harvey	2023SC000848	2/28/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RONALD SCHUNK	2023SC000446	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. STEVEN J WARFIELD	2023SC000445	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SCHARLETTE BROWN	2023SC000444	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DUSTIN D ULRICH	2023SC000443	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GEORGE BALASSI	2023SC000442	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. THOMAS C DOHERTY	2023SC000441	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JANE M ROSE	2023SC000440	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SHELLY L TORRES	2023SC000439	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. WENDY L PRINSEN	2023SC000438	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TRUDY B CHAMBERS	2023SC000437	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TIMOTHY S BECKER	2023SC000436	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANDREA M HAMETNER	2023SC000435	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARK T HEIN	2023SC000434	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RAYMOND DREILING	2023SC000432	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ROMAN E RAMIREZ SR	2023SC000431	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LYZA J MIESFELD	2023SC000430	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MATTHEW SLAVIK	2023SC000429	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NANCY A MANDEL	2023SC000428	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATEY A TESS	2023SC000427	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LANNA M RAAB	2023SC000426	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. GARYWAYNE L RATLIFF	2023SC000425	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL T GRUDZIELANEK	2023SC000424	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. HOLLY L HAUSSMAN	2023SC000423	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JEANETTE M POOLE	2023SC000422	2/28/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL KIRMSE	2023SC000326	2/28/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CONNIE L HALEY	2023SC000259	2/28/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PATRICK SOKOLIK	2023SC000255	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa M Arndt	2023SC000254	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shelly A Lewis	2023SC000253	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cynthia I Mann	2023SC000252	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vachel Wright	2023SC000251	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Matthew A Spradau	2023SC000250	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan J Schrader	2023SC000249	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KRISTIN CARLSON	2023SC000248	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen Holtz	2023SC000247	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica Mcarthur Smith	2023SC000246	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christi A Menard	2023SC000245	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donald E Foote	2023SC000244	2/28/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary E Wallner	2023SC000124	2/28/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DERIK J WANTLAND	2023SC000415	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. EDUARDO ORDONEZ	2023SC000414	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DARREN S TE STROETE	2023SC000413	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DAVID J PINNOW	2023SC000390	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CORINA A MCCRANIE	2023SC000389	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DAVID E COMPTON	2023SC000388	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AUTUMN FRIER	2023SC000387	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRADLEY J HEINECKE	2023SC000386	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AARON M WIRTZ	2023SC000385	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DIANE M HAMMERER	2023SC000384	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRIAN J SOHRE	2023SC000382	2/27/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vicente Acevedo	2023SC000227	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shelley M Vance	2023SC000226	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sharalynn M Niemi	2023SC000225	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen Anderson	2023SC000224	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey J Hoppe	2023SC000223	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard T Lien	2023SC000222	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark R Bakken	2023SC000221	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sydney A Smith	2023SC000220	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jane F Anderson	2023SC000219	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Stacey Fehly	2023SC000218	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David L Culbert	2023SC000213	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Denise C Zentz	2023SC000212	2/27/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANNA NORNBERG	2023SC000195	2/27/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anna L Stumpner	2023SC000151	2/27/2023	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary E Kemp	2023SC000148	2/27/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle M Steger	2023SC000127	2/27/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lindsay Blank	2023SC000103	2/27/2023	Oneida
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard L Busch	2023SC000089	2/27/2023	Green
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHLEEN LIEBENSTEIN	2023SC000037	2/27/2023	Vilas
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Maria D Wade	2023SC001033	2/24/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael L Milakovich	2023SC000803	2/24/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Maurice Levie	2023SC000800	2/24/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristi L Kiefer	2023SC000797	2/24/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eileen M Buske	2023SC000794	2/24/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alexander H Schultz	2023SC000791	2/24/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John J Gerosa	2023SC000789	2/24/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHRYN A. BENNER	2023SC000317	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LISA M. MEYER	2023SC000316	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MATHEW L. LUND	2023SC000315	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CANDACE LYNN	2023SC000314	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DALE MALECHA	2023SC000313	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. WENDY S. SIMKO	2023SC000312	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRENT W. ERICKSON	2023SC000311	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KIMBERLY DOUGLAS	2023SC000310	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JULIE A. CHASE	2023SC000309	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAMES PETERSON	2023SC000308	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LUKE VITKUS	2023SC000307	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. STEVEN M. ELLIS	2023SC000306	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHERINE HOLSCLAW	2023SC000305	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL D. MCLEMORE	2023SC000304	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CRYSTAL L. NEU	2023SC000303	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ERIN M. SALZMAN	2023SC000302	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL J. ZENDA	2023SC000301	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SCOTT M. GOEDEN	2023SC000300	2/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leila Fletcher	2023SC000119	2/24/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristy L Johnson	2023SC001320	2/23/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roger C Thompson	2023SC000992	2/23/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JANE SONNENSCHEIN	2023SC000571	2/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables LLC vs. Michael L Leisher Jr	2023SC000493	2/23/2023	Rock
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeremy J Lange	2023SC000343	2/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kevin J Karlen	2023SC000342	2/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rita M Lokemoen	2023SC000341	2/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Zachary L Kainz	2023SC000340	2/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leslie Reuter	2023SC000339	2/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John L Stahl	2023SC000338	2/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James T Driscoll	2023SC000337	2/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Naomi M Bureny	2023SC000047	2/23/2023	Iowa
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa Dassow	2023SC000046	2/23/2023	Iowa
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laurie J Robinson	2023SC000045	2/23/2023	Iowa
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janet Hentrich	2023SC000045	2/23/2023	Lafayette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Autume N Gollon	2023SC000044	2/23/2023	Iowa
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jimmie J Lewandowski	2023SC004790	2/22/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John H Schrank	2023SC000287	2/22/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John C Miller	2023SC000237	2/22/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dawn R Hupfer	2023SC000067	2/22/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronda Rickey	2023SC000598	2/21/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paul Barkley	2023SC000273	2/21/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David Austin	2023SC000272	2/21/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melanie L Hess	2023SC000271	2/21/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gregory J Stone	2023SC000270	2/21/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alan L Kapp	2023SC000269	2/21/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine Randall	2023SC000268	2/21/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KEVIN J ARMOUR	2023SC000233	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CARRIE A DILLINGHAM	2023SC000229	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TAMMY J WRIGHT	2023SC000227	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BONNIEJEAN M JEZESKI	2023SC000226	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JEANNETTE PESEK	2023SC000218	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DEBORAH A HOLTERMAN	2023SC000217	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. STEFANIE H OILSCHLAGER	2023SC000216	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NICHOLAS J BARRETT	2023SC000214	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JASON J KORSLIN	2023SC000213	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AMILYN V LEMMER	2023SC000212	2/21/2023	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CLAIRE L MARSH	2023SC000128	2/21/2023	Shawano
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roland Glatz	2023SC000127	2/21/2023	Shawano
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janell M Pabelick	2023SC000125	2/21/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bryan L Wilcox	2023SC000110	2/21/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David D Ferrel	2023SC000070	2/21/2023	Langlade
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Crystal A Pownell	2023SC000069	2/21/2023	Langlade
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill L Ruhland	2023SC000047	2/21/2023	Richland
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jacquelynn M Bellis	2023SC000046	2/21/2023	Richland
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jillian C Littleton	2023SC000045	2/21/2023	Richland
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert G Falkowski	2023SC004572	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Timothy R Wenz	2023SC004571	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. STACY EMOND	2023SC004570	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mandy L Pientka	2023SC004569	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tina Rohleder	2023SC004568	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicole Knueppel	2023SC004566	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pamela M Rigden	2023SC004565	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Randy Kutka	2023SC004564	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shantae M Reed	2023SC004563	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle L Gaeth	2023SC004562	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy L Darby	2023SC004561	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Verna D Wilder	2023SC004560	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary Beer	2023SC004559	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rebecca S Hice	2023SC004558	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ruben L Hernandez	2023SC004557	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Virginia Rocha	2023SC004556	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Monica M Luptak	2023SC004555	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Yoka M Slaughter	2023SC004554	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary Mosconi	2023SC004553	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Therese Roller	2023SC004552	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard J Wetzel	2023SC004551	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott A Equitz	2023SC004550	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Renata J Smith	2023SC004549	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jodi R Korab	2023SC004545	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Emmaline L Dennison Davila	2023SC004543	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason G McNamer	2023SC004541	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donna M Johnson	2023SC004540	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joseph S DiMaggio	2023SC004539	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alejandro L Morales	2023SC004538	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carolyn M McLaglen	2023SC004537	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deanna Laurette	2023SC004536	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lynn M Ridley	2023SC004534	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deborah L Sherwood	2023SC004533	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jaessen J Rolkosky	2023SC004532	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LisaLee M Gentry	2023SC004531	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kerry Dolph	2023SC004530	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ERICA ROSALES	2023SC004529	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James D Hall	2023SC004528	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jasmine S Mcgee	2023SC004527	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL H. WINNETT	2023SC004526	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James R Hamill	2023SC004525	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill A Domoracki	2023SC004524	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer M Krenz	2023SC004522	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra J Thomas	2023SC004520	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristin L Staszak	2023SC004518	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DEBORAH CYBELA	2023SC004517	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAY WATZLAWICK	2023SC004516	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kevin P Burns	2023SC004515	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelly W Schmidt	2023SC004514	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer L Santellan	2023SC004513	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony R Mackly	2023SC004512	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janiah I Carter Johnson	2023SC004511	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRENDA GRAHAM	2023SC004509	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dick A Kaquatosh Sr	2023SC004508	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly M Smail	2023SC004507	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alan M Kronenberg	2023SC004505	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Coy Collins	2023SC004504	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Frank Sellhausen	2023SC004502	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amber L Montalvo	2023SC004500	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roger C Thompson	2023SC004498	2/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa A Davis	2023SC000716	2/20/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kevin P Burns	2023SC000549	2/20/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL H. WINNETT	2023SC000548	2/20/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CINDY M. LAHA	2023SC000547	2/20/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Chad D. Templeman	2023SC000514	2/20/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JERE DANIELS	2023SC000513	2/20/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SANDRA L. ERICKSON	2023SC000512	2/20/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. FAYE A. WOLFF	2023SC000511	2/20/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BOBBIE J. SOLOMON	2023SC000510	2/20/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CYNTHIA D. PEDERSEN	2023SC000509	2/20/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Josephine P. Beyer	2023SC000508	2/20/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DANIEL J. SPRINGER	2023SC000507	2/20/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PATRICK F PEJSKAR	2023SC000235	2/20/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL A FIELDS	2023SC000234	2/20/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JOHN TURGEON	2023SC000233	2/20/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHELLE NELSON	2023SC000229	2/20/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BONNIE J HUBER	2023SC000217	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. REBECCA A RESCH	2023SC000216	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. WILLIAM P BIEBERITZ	2023SC000215	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MATTHEW SCHMALING	2023SC000214	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. FAY A DEBAUCHE	2023SC000213	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JASON GRUBE	2023SC000211	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. HOLLY D STANGEL	2023SC000210	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CATHY J WILDE	2023SC000209	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. HENRY J KOKESCH	2023SC000208	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BRAD A KNAPP	2023SC000207	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TRINA A HAMPEL	2023SC000206	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAMIE PAUTZ	2023SC000205	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL VANEYCK	2023SC000204	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PEGGY M VILLARREAL	2023SC000203	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MELISSA M BACHMANN	2023SC000202	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. RICHARD D ZACHOW	2023SC000201	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. HEIDI M KOCH	2023SC000200	2/20/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lesley K Coulter	2023SC000114	2/20/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Todd M Olczak	2023SC000113	2/20/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Victoria M Schuessler	2023SC000846	2/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle Timm	2023SC000845	2/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. BARBARA A. HARMON	2023SC000500	2/17/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah J. Meyer	2023SC000251	2/17/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jayne M. Jarvey	2023SC000249	2/17/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rebecca A Button	2023SC000131	2/17/2023	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gary J Richter	2023SC000102	2/17/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Stacy Busjahn	2023SC000079	2/17/2023	Green
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laura A Graf	2023SC001103	2/16/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shane E Conner	2023SC000697	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa J Davis	2023SC000696	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia A Winston	2023SC000695	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark J Wisniewski	2023SC000694	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda A Groothuis	2023SC000693	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jamie M Schmaling	2023SC000692	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karrie Willett	2023SC000691	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicholas J Miller	2023SC000690	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joe F Vassh	2023SC000689	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael D Irving	2023SC000688	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica M Kechter	2023SC000687	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen L Thomsen	2023SC000686	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark G Denneau	2023SC000685	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vasfi F Muedini	2023SC000684	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vorice Price	2023SC000660	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Fay E Bruce	2023SC000659	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dennis K Glover	2023SC000658	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronald W Bertzyk	2023SC000657	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donald D Degroot JR	2023SC000655	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kathleen J Zimmerman	2023SC000654	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela D Gentry	2023SC000653	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John S Gronert	2023SC000652	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leslie Thilleman	2023SC000651	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christopher M Murphy	2023SC000650	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dwight A Sager	2023SC000649	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cassandra Morales Salcedo	2023SC000648	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark Rodriguez	2023SC000647	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Edward J Gemmell	2023SC000646	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William J Drehfal	2023SC000645	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. PJ Rock	2023SC000644	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill R Benson	2023SC000643	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Desiree L Hargrove	2023SC000642	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen M Cacciotti	2023SC000641	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Charles J Ruta	2023SC000640	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra R Delap	2023SC000639	2/16/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Houa Yang	2023SC004241	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer M Kaas	2023SC004234	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda A Miller	2023SC004233	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Teresa A Evenson	2023SC004232	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah J Marceau	2023SC004183	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kaydee L Davis	2023SC004182	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Stephanie A DuBois	2023SC004179	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Meagan Chatman	2023SC004175	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Margarita Rivera	2023SC004174	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dawn V Henke	2023SC004173	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle A Burghaus	2023SC004169	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kendall J Sneide	2023SC004168	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa J Lesh	2023SC004167	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Venus R Christian	2023SC004166	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rachel R Gonzalez	2023SC004165	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KENNETH TREPINSKI JR	2023SC004164	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah D Jeffrey	2023SC004163	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KIM MERCED	2023SC004162	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Troy C Clark	2023SC004161	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tori Moerchen	2023SC004160	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ricardo J Rendon	2023SC004158	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nancy Durcholz	2023SC004157	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robin R Wondolkowski	2023SC004156	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary P Kraemer	2023SC004155	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TARA HERNANDEZ	2023SC004154	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Matthew Bayer	2023SC004153	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronald D Lafever	2023SC004152	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Terri L Jones	2023SC004151	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vjollca (Val) Mustafa	2023SC004150	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronald A Bell	2023SC004149	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lyle Davis	2023SC004148	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Willie J Monroe Sr	2023SC004147	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sandra T Aaberg	2023SC004146	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nika M Michalets	2023SC004145	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wendy A Patrickus	2023SC004144	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mikeleen J Richter	2023SC004143	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Theresa Baskin	2023SC004142	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa M Perez	2023SC004141	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer T Tinker	2023SC004140	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Steve D Kinney	2023SC004139	2/15/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William A. Anderson	2023SC000824	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Yvette S Figueroa	2023SC000823	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary E. Hyne	2023SC000822	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LORI BETH SHUTTE	2023SC000821	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wendy Culver	2023SC000820	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Crystal Danforth	2023SC000803	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ISABELLA R. KOX	2023SC000802	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. George I. Bieber	2023SC000801	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer E. Holsten	2023SC000800	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian Hussong	2023SC000799	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CONSTANTINO REYES	2023SC000798	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JILL C. HUSS	2023SC000797	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DEBBIE K. MERTENS	2023SC000796	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dana M McLester	2023SC000793	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Raymond Bosse	2023SC000734	2/15/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Steven L Shepard	2023SC000628	2/15/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karl J Lavergne	2023SC000550	2/15/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables LLC vs. Catherine M Schindler	2023SC000329	2/15/2023	Rock
APM Receivables LLC vs. Tamara M Huppert	2023SC000328	2/15/2023	Rock
APM Receivables LLC vs. Jeanna M Maasz	2023SC000327	2/15/2023	Rock
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda A Miller	2023SC000302	2/15/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brent L DeLong	2023SC000301	2/15/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bonnie L Heckert et al	2023SC000300	2/15/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer M Kaas	2023SC000299	2/15/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra L Morrison	2023SC000217	2/15/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Matthew E Schulte	2023SC000213	2/15/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Constance M Ruttner	2023SC000177	2/15/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nels P Jensen Jr	2023SC000116	2/15/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Howard S Ehmke	2023SC000115	2/15/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David G Mortl	2023SC000097	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Natalya Francine M Joram	2023SC000096	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda Jorgenson Johnson	2023SC000095	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paul H Flannery	2023SC000094	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paula H Mayer et al	2023SC000093	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Denise M Maglio Malchow	2023SC000092	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wayne C Schmidt	2023SC000091	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Samantha Gillis	2023SC000090	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert D Anderson	2023SC000089	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine Gasser	2023SC000088	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deborah M Arndt	2023SC000087	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Peter Quale Sr	2023SC000086	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey M Knapp	2023SC000085	2/15/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lori J Ogden	2023SC000082	2/15/2023	Lincoln
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Linda R Hirte	2023SC000081	2/15/2023	Lincoln
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kali L Danforth	2023SC000064	2/15/2023	Door
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vicki L Sisel	2023SC000046	2/15/2023	Kewaunee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jessica M Olson	2023SC000045	2/15/2023	Kewaunee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SARA N MARTENS	2023SC000019	2/15/2023	Marquette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. AUTUMN KEMNITZ	2023SC000018	2/15/2023	Marquette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Allison M Hauser	2023SC004070	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Holly A Wyman	2023SC004069	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Constance S McLain	2023SC004068	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DELIA ROEMBKE	2023SC004067	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony R Galbari	2023SC004066	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Aaliyah A Munoz	2023SC004065	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jonathon G Pritzl	2023SC004064	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Aline Williams	2023SC004063	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Charles L Riley	2023SC004062	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Benjamin B Snyder	2023SC004060	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Audra Finnegan	2023SC004059	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer R Thomas MD	2023SC004058	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David T Korinek	2023SC004057	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eleanore C Hawley	2023SC004056	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JEFFERIE SCOTT	2023SC004055	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alberta Kruszwicki	2023SC004053	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alissa J Collison	2023SC004052	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra Barth	2023SC004051	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daryl A Bates	2023SC004050	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dawn M Gomez	2023SC004049	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David Nickels	2023SC004038	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Holly C Turner Hegeman	2023SC004030	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARCY KUSCH	2023SC004019	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Peter P Hendricks	2023SC004018	2/14/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laura C Bloomfield	2023SC001062	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patrick J Shultz	2023SC001061	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tanya M. Morrow	2023SC001056	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lane B. Becker Bley	2023SC001055	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Juli Johnson	2023SC001054	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kerri A. Hirst	2023SC001053	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rodney L. Gilbertson	2023SC001052	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jodi L. Risden	2023SC001051	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sheryl A. Krause	2023SC001050	2/14/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. STEVEN C HACKER	2023SC000753	2/14/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elizabeth A Hurst	2023SC000664	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael Thomas	2023SC000663	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William J Maxfeldt	2023SC000662	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael A Mauer Sr	2023SC000661	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laurie A Marshall	2023SC000660	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristin A Troutman	2023SC000659	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARCY KUSCH AKA ROBINSON	2023SC000658	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cathrine A Higbee	2023SC000657	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donald W Grant	2023SC000656	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deanne M Lehman	2023SC000655	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Holly A Grant	2023SC000654	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael J Elliott	2023SC000653	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lori A Barkley	2023SC000652	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laura J Kucharski	2023SC000651	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jacqueline M Gardner	2023SC000650	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle L Thomas	2023SC000649	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David Marklund	2023SC000648	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kenneth J Cobb	2023SC000647	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra J Carpenter	2023SC000646	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Douglas A Knutson	2023SC000645	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cassandra A Conrath	2023SC000644	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Erich J Ewing	2023SC000643	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott Dummert	2023SC000642	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle M Olivarez	2023SC000641	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jimmie Liddell	2023SC000640	2/14/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah Van De Kreeke	2023SC000296	2/14/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia M Bagley	2023SC000165	2/14/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KIM m COLDREN	2023SC000164	2/14/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Samantha L Lambrecht	2023SC000163	2/14/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan J Auer	2023SC000162	2/14/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MICHAEL L BUETOW	2023SC000161	2/14/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CARLA STEINKE	2023SC000160	2/14/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donald W Schmalzer	2023SC000159	2/14/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Peter P Hendricks	2023SC000157	2/14/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rodney L Gilbertson	2023SC003896	2/13/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karrie Willett	2023SC003895	2/13/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tanya M Morrow	2023SC003894	2/13/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michele Pruitt	2023SC003875	2/13/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christopher E. Kettner	2023SC001000	2/13/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kellie K. Gasser	2023SC000511	2/13/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. KATHERINE VANGROLL	2023SC000510	2/13/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott Ziegler	2023SC000509	2/13/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Adalia M. Jansen	2023SC000475	2/13/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. DARREN STRUVE	2023SC000292	2/13/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Trevor F Matelko	2023SC000291	2/13/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Timothy Grande	2023SC000290	2/13/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jamie L Lacy	2023SC000228	2/13/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Darlene A Aceves	2023SC000162	2/13/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carrie L Findora	2023SC000103	2/13/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Denise Vertz	2023SC000102	2/13/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tamra Dwars Meudt	2023SC000101	2/13/2023	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Drew Pritzl	2023SC000087	2/13/2023	Oneida
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joyce L. Paradies	2023SC000075	2/13/2023	Adams
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARIA HANCE	2023SC000058	2/13/2023	Calumet
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon Y. Ploeckelman	2023SC000057	2/13/2023	Calumet
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Natasha L. Cadavid	2023SC000056	2/13/2023	Calumet
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wendy L. Waubiness	2023SC000456	2/10/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jonathon Strey	2023SC000038	2/10/2023	Clark
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angel Lebron	2023SC000037	2/10/2023	Clark
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Matthew D McCoy	2023SC000494	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas B Ohlinger	2023SC000493	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jimmy T Gilmore	2023SC000492	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janie Aguirre	2023SC000491	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Hazel M Crowder	2023SC000490	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jade C Stanich	2023SC000489	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Stephanie L Reesman	2023SC000488	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kathryn A Sweeting	2023SC000487	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jamie A Peterson	2023SC000486	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard L Diamond	2023SC000485	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard A Martinez	2023SC000484	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jimmie J Anderson	2023SC000483	2/9/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James F Guenther	2023SC000195	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Travis L Ottesen	2023SC000194	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dawn M Smith	2023SC000193	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Adam R Gosse	2023SC000192	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey W Turner	2023SC000191	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paula F Spencer	2023SC000190	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia J Thiede	2023SC000189	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mathew J Mullin	2023SC000188	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christopher A Larsen	2023SC000187	2/9/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Travis J Lesperance	2023SC000155	2/9/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Diana L Mitchell	2023SC000474	2/8/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Guadalupe B Ramirez	2023SC000473	2/8/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dennis M Landry	2023SC000472	2/8/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Craig Stone	2023SC000471	2/8/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cindy Morgan	2023SC000470	2/8/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela R Victoria	2023SC000469	2/8/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Charlen D Crippen	2023SC000468	2/8/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leila Fletcher	2023SC003469	2/7/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leila Fletcher	2023SC000578	2/7/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Luke Olson	2023SC003109	2/1/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Steven C Pufall	2023SC000104	2/1/2023	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John L Clure	2023SC003015	1/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristy L Johnson	2023SC003014	1/31/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jose Nunez	2023SC002325	1/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey W Bollis	2023SC002322	1/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen M Wendt	2023SC002321	1/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon C Guibord	2023SC002320	1/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Freddie Washington	2023SC002319	1/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary L Berndt	2023SC002318	1/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kevin L Allen	2023SC002317	1/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Louise S Turner	2023SC002315	1/26/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jose Nunez	2023SC000434	1/26/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christina M Steigerwald	2023SC000424	1/26/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen L Kawlewski	2023SC000100	1/26/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Hollisue M Soto	2023SC000099	1/26/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Timothy J Balciunas	2023SC000098	1/26/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Evan M Kuhn	2023SC000097	1/26/2023	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bethamie G Montieth	2023SC000075	1/26/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robin Dorn	2023SC000074	1/26/2023	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bambi L Yogerst	2023SC002201	1/25/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jerry J Foster	2023SC000368	1/25/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elizabeth A Barthel	2023SC002080	1/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gregory J Rossey	2023SC002079	1/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas A Ottow	2023SC002078	1/24/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gregory J Rossey	2023SC000170	1/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael F Mehring Sr	2023SC000169	1/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Edith M VanDusen	2023SC000168	1/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas A Ottow	2023SC000167	1/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle M Clausing	2023SC000166	1/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Haris Mackic	2023SC000165	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ava D Peterson et al	2023SC000165	1/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela M Mertzig	2023SC000164	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Candy L Sharpe	2023SC000164	1/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly A Rango	2023SC000163	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robin R Layton	2023SC000163	1/24/2023	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Larry A Matson	2023SC000162	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kathy L Kurer	2023SC000161	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kathleen E Karbe	2023SC000160	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Larry L Drews	2023SC000159	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Charles S Gilmore	2023SC000158	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott R Landgraf	2023SC000157	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert W Zachow	2023SC000156	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Edward J Kuptz	2023SC000155	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ashley N Schmidt	2023SC000154	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elizabeth A Barthel	2023SC000153	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William F Klein	2023SC000152	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joan M Fischer	2023SC000151	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bambi L Yogerst	2023SC000150	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan L Kraft	2023SC000147	1/24/2023	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Timothy L Boggs	2023SC000128	1/24/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melissa K Rodriguez	2023SC000092	1/24/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ginger M Stevens	2023SC000047	1/24/2023	Shawano
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gayle T Rich	2023SC001764	1/23/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christina M Steigerwald	2023SC001728	1/23/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey G Wilcox Jr	2023SC000284	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian Kosmosky	2023SC000283	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bonnie J Tullberg	2023SC000282	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah A Purdy	2023SC000281	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Marcella J Bramer	2023SC000280	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen D Holcomb	2023SC000279	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James Woeshnick	2023SC000278	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kenneth R Finn	2023SC000277	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jody A Luecke	2023SC000276	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janet L Sullivan	2023SC000275	1/23/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa M Prichard	2023SC000111	1/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Toni Boushon	2023SC000110	1/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janamarie M Korlaske	2023SC000109	1/23/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gayle T Rich	2023SC000080	1/23/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tanya M Larsen	2023SC000019	1/23/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert G Miller	2023SC000018	1/23/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joan M Goff	2023SC001631	1/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tamara L Trevisan	2023SC001629	1/20/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dominique M Piche	2023SC001542	1/19/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Maria P Hernandez Verduzco	2023SC001540	1/19/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dominique M Piche	2023SC000329	1/19/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. William F Klein	2023SC001373	1/18/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah K Heller	2023SC001372	1/18/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tawnya R Williams	2023SC000267	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Timothy M Ross	2023SC000266	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael Glenn	2023SC000265	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rebecca L Becker	2023SC000264	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle E Sobczak	2023SC000263	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott R Wyma	2023SC000262	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Toni L Rondone	2023SC000261	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy J Cook	2023SC000260	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rees Dieter	2023SC000259	1/18/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah K Heller	2023SC000075	1/18/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly A Jacoby	2023SC001346	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jane Wanty	2023SC001322	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Delorise A Martin	2023SC001282	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kyle E Welch	2023SC001281	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bertha Redd	2023SC001280	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John F Galla	2023SC001279	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Denise K Shepherd	2023SC001278	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Megan L Salgado	2023SC001277	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Andrae A Harris	2023SC001276	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey P Pagel	2023SC001275	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alice M Kern	2023SC001274	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amy M Centell	2023SC001273	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Darlene D DeJesus	2023SC001272	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason M Dixon	2023SC001271	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel R Post	2023SC001270	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Larry M Collier	2023SC001269	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly Smith	2023SC001268	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard W Wilson	2023SC001267	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jacqueline A Stoecker	2023SC001266	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James Woeshnick	2023SC001265	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sharon D Wright	2023SC001264	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bruce R Palzkill	2023SC001263	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wanda Sierra	2023SC001262	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bonnie J Tullberg	2023SC001261	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian L Johnson	2023SC001260	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deborah Olson	2023SC001259	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Bhupinder Saini	2023SC001258	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan D Edgar	2023SC001257	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Craig A Thomsen	2023SC001256	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alison E Taft	2023SC001255	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wade E Woodworth	2023SC001251	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian Kosmosky	2023SC001250	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joseph W Biehn	2023SC001249	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon M Jensen	2023SC001248	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cheryl A Kwiatkowski	2023SC001244	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Troy M Meyer	2023SC001242	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Connie L Maddox	2023SC001240	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Fredrick R Kelley	2023SC001238	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shawn Schneider	2023SC001213	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mario Brown	2023SC001211	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tracey L Webler	2023SC001210	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Antonienne M Gill	2023SC001208	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nadene A Wolski	2023SC001207	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary Espinoza Voronych	2023SC001205	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dorothy J Huley	2023SC001203	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Francisco Gutierrez	2023SC001201	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anna M Calhoun	2023SC001200	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Richard F Stelloh	2023SC001198	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Natalie R Morris	2023SC001197	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary C Schanning	2023SC001194	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristi J Stibbe	2023SC001193	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James R Notham	2023SC001191	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wendy M Sobczyk	2023SC001189	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Frederick C Weidenfeller	2023SC001187	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amber J Yakel	2023SC001186	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Andres Guzman	2023SC001184	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa Lemmerhirt	2023SC001183	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amy Campos	2023SC001182	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Helen D Street	2023SC001180	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert Teed	2023SC001170	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy G Gendron	2023SC001169	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lynn A Schupp	2023SC001167	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pamela J Rumsey	2023SC001166	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia White	2023SC001163	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robyn A Van Treeck	2023SC001162	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Timothy J Buzzell	2023SC001161	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle Williams	2023SC001156	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lillie B Hardmon	2023SC001154	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Martha A Romero	2023SC001152	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Humberto Rodriguez	2023SC001150	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melissa D Gomez	2023SC001149	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. WHITNEY J WARWICK	2023SC001147	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Margaret E Marr	2023SC001146	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sandra L Jacobson	2023SC001145	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey L Mayer	2023SC001144	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Xavier L Brown	2023SC001143	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lori L Hickok Carlson	2023SC001142	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Denise R Gunby	2023SC001141	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. ANNIE DURHAM	2023SC001140	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pedro D Rodriguez	2023SC001139	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Andrew Williams JR	2023SC001138	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jillian M Johnson	2023SC001137	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eric D Duesing	2023SC001136	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elizabeth A Badour	2023SC001135	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NANCY KOHL	2023SC001134	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel T Kirmse	2023SC001133	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. MARKESHA WILLIAMS	2023SC001132	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Wendy E Fischer	2023SC001131	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael Artic	2023SC001130	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas V Burch	2023SC001129	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sharyl F Meenen	2023SC001127	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mister N Bratchett	2023SC001126	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pauline E Hulstein	2023SC001125	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ladonna Foster	2023SC001124	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shelene M Harrington	2023SC001123	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mary Theresa Gonzalez	2023SC001122	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Youlanda Candler	2023SC001120	1/17/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sharyl F Meenen	2023SC000390	1/17/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Judith Caruso	2023SC000388	1/17/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Elizabeth A Badour	2023SC000385	1/17/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. WHITNEY J WARWICK	2023SC000373	1/17/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Holly A VanCamp	2023SC000251	1/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Keith P Bartol	2023SC000250	1/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ann M Stacy	2023SC000249	1/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert L Seidler	2023SC000248	1/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Howard M Vandevoort	2023SC000247	1/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dawn M Coppock	2023SC000246	1/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vanessa R Robinson	2023SC000245	1/17/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jodi L Murray	2023SC000239	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debora A Lanouette	2023SC000238	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lisa A Toler	2023SC000237	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Edward J Vasquez	2023SC000236	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Johanna E Hawkins	2023SC000235	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jerry J Foster	2023SC000234	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Chester T Ford	2023SC000233	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joe T Brown Sr	2023SC000232	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill Garcia	2023SC000224	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Misty C Cvengros	2023SC000223	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Glenn H Loschenkohl	2023SC000222	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deborah Olson	2023SC000215	1/17/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly A Jacoby	2023SC000136	1/17/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott G Ullenberg	2023SC000077	1/17/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lois M Marx	2023SC000072	1/17/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer J Kartman	2023SC000039	1/17/2023	Grant
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pamela S Leffler	2023SC000009	1/17/2023	Florence
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kyle E Welch	2023SC000197	1/16/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brooke M Revoir	2023SC000196	1/16/2023	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas V Burch	2023SC000186	1/16/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. April R Higgins	2023SC000075	1/16/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paula J James	2023SC000059	1/16/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kendra Kozaczuk	2023SC000058	1/16/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Heather A Rehme	2023SC000057	1/16/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark R Zahn	2023SC000056	1/16/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristie L Shillcox	2023SC000055	1/16/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kathy K Hansen	2023SC000054	1/16/2023	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Matthew D Reindl	2023SC000024	1/16/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Peter D Zak	2023SC000023	1/16/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah Foks	2023SC000022	1/16/2023	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Arline D Swanson	2023SC000015	1/16/2023	Richland
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly K Golackson	2023SC000014	1/16/2023	Richland
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kay A Ceballos	2023SC001058	1/13/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gene A Podella	2023SC000070	1/13/2023	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Edward J Anschutz	2023SC000972	1/12/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark Wellhoefer	2023SC000971	1/12/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Renee N Hoffmann	2023SC000970	1/12/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shannon Patrick-Stern	2023SC000277	1/12/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joan Wheeler	2023SC000276	1/12/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joan M Goff	2023SC000274	1/12/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dawn V Henke	2023SC000273	1/12/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roger D McCray	2023SC000272	1/12/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kimberly L Gaudet	2023SC000271	1/12/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tara R Hanna	2023SC000270	1/12/2023	Dane
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Edward J Anschutz	2023SC000171	1/12/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TINA R DIAMOND	2023SC000088	1/12/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle L Peterson	2023SC000087	1/12/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lenore L Clark	2023SC000086	1/12/2023	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristy L Johnson	2023SC000055	1/12/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joan M Goff	2023SC000054	1/12/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ryan M Kramer	2023SC000053	1/12/2023	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cynthia R Elliott	2023SC000022	1/12/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Shelley J Corey	2023SC000021	1/12/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. LU STENSTRUP	2023SC000020	1/12/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leslie Sleeter	2023SC000940	1/11/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mark Wellhoefer	2023SC000175	1/11/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tina M Petersen	2023SC000174	1/11/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Alex J Poplawski	2023SC000173	1/11/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Barbara M Simmons	2023SC000047	1/11/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert A Huffman	2023SC000042	1/11/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James R Newhouse	2023SC000041	1/11/2023	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dawn Block	2023SC000018	1/11/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joshua J Albert	2023SC000017	1/11/2023	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jane R Miller	2023SC000012	1/11/2023	Dunn
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Peggy S Reignier	2023SC000010	1/11/2023	Kewaunee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Antwoine Owens	2023SC000006	1/11/2023	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joseph B Batterton	2023SC000808	1/10/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Julie A Finks	2023SC000806	1/10/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine E Simmons	2023SC000768	1/10/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rhonda K Smith	2023SC000150	1/10/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian C Erwin	2023SC000069	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susanne I Smith	2023SC000068	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dwight F Bradley	2023SC000067	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joseph B Batterton	2023SC000066	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristine R Pegues	2023SC000065	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Clarence M Hagan Jr	2023SC000064	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Patricia A Ammon	2023SC000063	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eula Payne-Williams	2023SC000062	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra Lentz	2023SC000061	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelly L Holvick	2023SC000060	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Harry J Ammon	2023SC000059	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Marie C Basara	2023SC000058	1/10/2023	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vickie M Embertson	2023SC000043	1/10/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rick H Sampson	2023SC000042	1/10/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James M Chapman	2023SC000041	1/10/2023	Portage
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Melinda R Grabowski	2023SC000028	1/10/2023	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine E Simmons	2023SC000093	1/9/2023	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anthony Brice	2023SC000082	1/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gary W Tate Jr	2023SC000081	1/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela H Goodman	2023SC000080	1/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sarah I Johns	2023SC000079	1/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. James J Vollbracht	2023SC000078	1/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Berta L Young	2023SC000077	1/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lucille Zuehlsdorf	2023SC000076	1/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Meghann R Wyss	2023SC000075	1/9/2023	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Holly J Wealton	2023SC000072	1/6/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Thomas L Walker	2023SC000071	1/6/2023	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Crystal l Lopetkiewicz	2023SC000125	1/4/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael W Anderson	2023SC000123	1/4/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Matthew D Coffey	2023SC000120	1/4/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. SANDRA K OVEN	2023SC000119	1/4/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Vernon L Masch	2023SC000118	1/4/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason N Mounts	2023SC000031	1/4/2023	Rock
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David J Schaefer	2023SC000082	1/3/2023	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Janell M Pabelick	2023SC000002	1/3/2023	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. TONYA ZITTLOW	2022SC001520	12/30/2022	Fond du Lac
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pamela J Knautz	2022SC032029	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Velma L Barth	2022SC032028	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lakaya Mccloud	2022SC032027	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jose M Lopez	2022SC032026	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Peter P Majerus	2022SC032025	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JAMES L GROSSMEYER	2022SC032024	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela L Carstensen	2022SC032023	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carlos A Colon	2022SC032022	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Darlena E Poulos	2022SC032021	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kerry J Swosinski	2022SC032020	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer S Belmoudden	2022SC032019	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Willie Smith Jr	2022SC031982	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Renee M Sullivan	2022SC031981	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Randy Hoof	2022SC031980	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Ronney Johnson	2022SC031979	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rebecca L Pagel	2022SC031978	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rebecca A Gilbert	2022SC031977	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Samantha A Howe	2022SC031976	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Todd A Duerr	2022SC031975	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan M Nelson	2022SC031974	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Katherine H Wooten	2022SC031968	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nancy Velazquez	2022SC031967	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicole M Zingsheim	2022SC031966	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael A Winters	2022SC031965	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. NYDIA MALDONADO	2022SC031964	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael J Wulz	2022SC031963	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicole M Heiden	2022SC031960	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Mattie Bryan	2022SC031959	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael A Siebenlist	2022SC031958	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Leigh A Notham	2022SC031957	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Larry Lee	2022SC031956	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. April J Antczak	2022SC031945	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JENNIFER M DURR	2022SC031944	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jamie L Balistreri	2022SC031942	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Annette Bailey	2022SC031940	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Frank J Wade	2022SC031938	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deneesa L Richert	2022SC031937	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Juan A Baez	2022SC031936	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kari M Klatt	2022SC031935	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jimmie R Pugh	2022SC031934	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Diane C Parker	2022SC031933	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffrey T Merk	2022SC031932	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. CHERYL BUCHHOLZ	2022SC031930	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Denise M Stelter	2022SC031929	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. JULIE J NAVE	2022SC031928	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Earnestine Wallace	2022SC031917	12/29/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Roberta L Vlk	2022SC003045	12/29/2022	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine M Aiello	2022SC003044	12/29/2022	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Victor E Apolo	2022SC003043	12/29/2022	Kenosha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robin C Otten	2022SC001194	12/29/2022	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Tammy A Mierow	2022SC001193	12/29/2022	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Raymond Adler	2022SC001192	12/29/2022	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian E Jankowski	2022SC001191	12/29/2022	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Randall D Whitrock	2022SC001190	12/29/2022	Dodge
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kerry J Swosinski	2022SC001172	12/29/2022	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brenda K Frick	2022SC000872	12/29/2022	Jefferson
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jennifer P Prey	2022SC000777	12/29/2022	Columbia
APM Receivables, LLC vs. David B Thompson	2022SC000620	12/29/2022	Juneau
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sara Dodge	2022SC000565	12/29/2022	Barron
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Peter Schwartz	2022SC000371	12/29/2022	Lincoln
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela D Shellenberger	2022SC000370	12/29/2022	Lincoln
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jose A Guillen Buere	2022SC000296	12/29/2022	Door
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Emily M Vandenplas	2022SC000295	12/29/2022	Door
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jodi L Hartlaub	2022SC001091	12/28/2022	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Valarie K Jacobs	2022SC001090	12/28/2022	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Theresa A Persick	2022SC001089	12/28/2022	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Debra J Jacobson	2022SC001088	12/28/2022	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason A Grenier	2022SC001087	12/28/2022	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brenda L Smith	2022SC001086	12/28/2022	Manitowoc
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelly E Dudka	2022SC031742	12/27/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert E Hawlish	2022SC002930	12/27/2022	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kelly E Dudka	2022SC002929	12/27/2022	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John E McCandless	2022SC002928	12/27/2022	Outagamie
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Emily Franzen	2022SC001814	12/27/2022	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jerrod C Radosta	2022SC001813	12/27/2022	Marathon
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Carol A Sturgeon	2022SC001101	12/27/2022	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lonnie L Nolin	2022SC001100	12/27/2022	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Peter Woyak	2022SC001098	12/27/2022	Walworth
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Eric W Neumann	2022SC001066	12/27/2022	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Rebecca J Lacoy	2022SC000626	12/27/2022	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Owen F Suennen	2022SC000625	12/27/2022	Marinette
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Scott Brince	2022SC000590	12/27/2022	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jacqueline M Wisler	2022SC000589	12/27/2022	Ozaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Garron M Durn	2022SC004894	12/21/2022	Brown
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicole L Skenandore	2022SC003642	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Joshua Thompson	2022SC003640	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Paul Tomkowiak	2022SC003638	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Pamela B Blake	2022SC003637	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kerry J Fryatt	2022SC003636	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Anne C Nuval	2022SC003635	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Susan V Kolberg	2022SC003634	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Victor Torres Jr	2022SC003633	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jeffery Daniels	2022SC003632	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cora B Kiphart	2022SC003631	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laura A Moran	2022SC003630	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Judith C Ginsch	2022SC003629	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Deanna L Thruman	2022SC003628	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen Burbach	2022SC003627	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert J Kristbaum	2022SC003626	12/21/2022	Waukesha
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sharon L Gentry	2022SC003530	12/21/2022	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Lynn A Tolliver	2022SC003529	12/21/2022	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel LaFond	2022SC003528	12/21/2022	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Victor R Hulita	2022SC003527	12/21/2022	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karisa L Jutrzonka	2022SC003526	12/21/2022	Racine
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Steven S Olson	2022SC002770	12/21/2022	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Sonya L Schwartzkopf	2022SC002769	12/21/2022	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Karen Buck	2022SC002768	12/21/2022	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Donna J Schimmers	2022SC002767	12/21/2022	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michelle M Perry	2022SC002766	12/21/2022	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Julian D Carter	2022SC002765	12/21/2022	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Charlene K Williams	2022SC002764	12/21/2022	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Preston D Johnson	2022SC002763	12/21/2022	Winnebago
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Chad A Gould	2022SC001634	12/21/2022	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Michael E Karbe	2022SC001633	12/21/2022	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Dorothy T Quiery	2022SC001632	12/21/2022	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jason Hornsby Gutche	2022SC001631	12/21/2022	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robyn Berth Schneider	2022SC001630	12/21/2022	Sheboygan
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robin N Hawes	2022SC001257	12/21/2022	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. John M Jaksic	2022SC001151	12/21/2022	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Angela M Kanngieser	2022SC001150	12/21/2022	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Nicholas A Hackett	2022SC001149	12/21/2022	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Kristine D Hmircik	2022SC001148	12/21/2022	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Cynthia M Zastrow	2022SC001147	12/21/2022	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert E Douglas	2022SC001146	12/21/2022	Washington
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Robert L Hyde	2022SC001052	12/21/2022	Wood
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Gilbert R Daugherty	2022SC000507	12/21/2022	Oneida
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Amanda K Kuiper	2022SC000506	12/21/2022	Oneida
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Brian L Snow	2022SC000445	12/21/2022	Oconto
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Megan A Cieslik	2022SC000286	12/21/2022	Waushara
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine M Dutton	2022SC031231	12/16/2022	Milwaukee
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Christine M Dutton	2022SC001236	12/16/2022	Sauk
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Laura Nowak	2022SC000598	12/16/2022	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Daniel L Langner	2022SC000597	12/16/2022	Waupaca
APM Receivables, LLC vs. Jill G Oertel	2022SC000596	12/16/2022	Waupaca

Dobberstein Law Firm

2023-06-01T18:34:00.006-04:00

Dobberstein Law Firm

Dobberstein Law Firm is a law firm in Brookfield, Wisconsin that specializes in debt collection and litigation. The firm was founded in 2006 by Adam Dobberstein, and it currently has ten full-time attorneys. Dobberstein Law Firm represents clients in a number of areas, including retail collections, installment loan collections, commercial litigation, and medical collections. The firm is a member of the American Bar Association, the Wisconsin Bar Association, and the Iowa State Bar Association.

US ex rel. Hedstrom, et al v. Advanced Pain Management SC, Settlement Agreement

APM Receivables LLC collection lawsuits

Here are some of the services that Dobberstein Law Firm offers:

Debt collection: Dobberstein Law Firm can help you collect on past-due debts. The firm has a team of experienced debt collectors who will work with your debtors to get them to pay what they owe.
Litigation: If you are unable to collect on a debt through debt collection, Dobberstein Law Firm can file a lawsuit on your behalf. The firm has a proven track record of success in court, and it will fight hard to get you the money you are owed.

Here are some additional details about the firm:

Address: 225 S Executive Dr, Brookfield, WI 53005
Phone number: (262) 641-3715
Website: https://dlflaw.com/

Unclaimed funds - Sample Finder's Agreement

2023-02-01T14:19:00.003-05:00

GOVERNMENT AUDIT & BENEFICIARY LOCATOR CLIENT AGREEMENT

______________ (the “Company’) is pleased to assist you with attempting to recover some of the assets lost in the foreclosure of __________________ (the “Claim”) that potentially belong to you, ____________, an estate, trust, corporation, LLC, or other legal entity that you are associated with (“You/Claimant’). Based on our analysis, this foreclosure may be eligible for up to $___________ when applied for through the right government program(s). This engagement letter (the “Agreement”) outlines the terms of our services and your responsibilities as we help you recover these funds.

1. Services offered. The Company agrees to provide the following services in connection with the Claim:

A. Identification of Claim. The Company will perform the necessary research to identify the source of and maximum amount of funds to apply for in the Claim.

B. Recovery and Expenses. Company shall pay all expenses, including paying all legal expenses, whether or not the claim is recovered. Company shall dedicate the labor required to apply for your Claim on your behalf in Court, or otherwise.

2. Your Responsibilities. In connection with applying for the Claim, You agree to the following:

A. Authorization. You authorize the Company to act as your exclusive agent to apply for the Claim.

B. Paperwork. You agree to sign and return all documents required for application of the Claim to the Company within 3 business days of receiving them.

C. Cooperation. You agree to cooperate with the local attorney assigned to your case (if your case requires the help of a licensed attorney) to fill out and return any prepared paperwork. Both parties agree to cooperate fully with all reasonable requests from the other in performance of this Agreement.

D. Non-Circumvention and Nondisclosure. You understand that during the process of working with the Company, You may learn how to apply for the Claim. You agree that You will not disclose this information to any person or entity, nor will You attempt to circumvent the Company by applying for the claim without the Company's involvement. Should You circumvent the Company, you are still responsible for paying all of the Company's fees and expenses, as outlined below.

Costs and Fees.

A. Costs. The Company will pay for ALL costs associated with the application and recovery of the Claim.

B. Success Fee. Upon successful recovery of the Claim, You will receive 65% of the funds from the Claim. You agree that the Company shail retain 35% of the Claim as a success and administration fee. The party receiving the Claim check is obligated to send the other party their portion of the Claim within 10 business days of receiving the Claim check and the funds clearing their bank. If either party fails to pay the other as agreed, the party responsible for paying shall be liable for treble damages.

C. Local Attorney. If the Company is required to engage a local attorney, the attorney may be responsible for applying for your Claim and distributing your portion to You.

D. Governing Law, Venue, and Relief. This Agreement is governed under the laws of Missouri, where the Company is headquartered. In the event of a dispute, the venue shall be the City of St. Louis, MO. The prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and other relief awarded by the Court.

E. Binding. This Agreement is binding upon all heirs, successors in interest, and assigns.

F. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

If the terms of this client engagement letter are acceptable to You, please acknowledge by signing below (physically or electronically) and returning to our office, either by mail or electronically.

--------------------

Tom Fox, J. D.
Southern Specialty Law Publishing Company
Louisville, Kentucky

----------- oOo ---------

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

Kari Lake, et al., v. Katie Hobbs - FRCP 11 Sanctions

2022-12-03T12:14:00.001-05:00

FRCP 11 Sanctions

Kari Lake, et al., v. Katie Hobbs, et al.,

No. CV-22-00677-PHX-JJT U. S. District Court for Arizona

All politics aside, the recent controversy in the 2022 Arizona election has generated an unusual opportunity to witness a U. S. District Court Judge put Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 11 sanctions into practice.

Link to Court Document

When an attorney or litigant files a pleading with a federal court, Rule 11 provides that certain representations are implicit in the submission. Specifically, Rule 11(b) provides,

“ . . . . an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:

(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;

(2) the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law; [and]

(3) the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery. . . . “

If Rule 11 is violated, the Court may impose sanctions upon the litigant or the attorney.

In Lake v. Hobbs, Plaintiffs challenged the procedures for administering elections in

Arizona and sought an injunction compelling Defendants—election officials at the state

and county levels—to follow alternative procedures for collecting, storing, counting, and

tabulating votes in the 2022 midterm election.

“Broadly, Plaintiffs alleged that the electronic voting machines certified for use in Arizona, including optical scanners and ballot marking devices . . . are “potentially unsecure, lack adequate audit capacity, fail to meet minimum statutory requirements, and deprive voters of the right to have their votes counted and reported in an accurate, auditable, legal, and transparent process.”

. . . Plaintiffs alleged that the machines are “rife” with cybersecurity vulnerabilities and allow for unauthorized persons to manipulate the reported vote counts in an election and potentially change the winner.

. . . Plaintiffs claimed that Arizona’s audit regime is insufficient to negate these vulnerabilities and that the only way to overcome the security issues they identify is “for the Court to Order, an election conducted by paper ballot, as an alternative to the current framework.” . . .

Plaintiffs requested that the Court implement certain procedures, including the use of paper ballots and a live-streamed hand-count of all ballots cast.

. . . Plaintiffs maintained that the Cyber Ninjas’ hand count of two contests in the 2020 general election in Maricopa County offers “a proof-of-concept and a superior alternative to relying on corruptible electronic voting systems.” . . . . “

In July, 2022, the Court dismissed Plaintiffs’ Complaint and the Defendants requested the Court impose sanctions under Rule 11. Defendants argued that Plaintiffs and their counsel made “numerous false allegations about Arizona elections in their [complaint] . . . , that Plaintiffs’ claims are frivolous, and that they pursued this case for the improper purpose of undermining confidence in elections and furthering their political campaigns.”

The court wrote:

Applying Rule 11 “requires sensitivity to two competing considerations . . . On the one hand, . . . on occasion attorneys engage in litigation tactics so vexatious as to be unjustifiable even within the broad bounds of our adversarial system, and . . . neither the other parties nor the courts should have to abide such behavior or waste time and money coping with it.” . . . Thus, “the central purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings.” . . . On the other hand, . . . our system of litigation is an adversary one, and . . . presenting the facts and law as favorably as fairly possible in favor of one’s client is the nub of the lawyer’s task.” . . . Sanctions therefore should be imposed “only in the most egregious situations, lest lawyers be deterred from vigorous representation of their clients. . . .”

“. . . . Sanctions . . . must be supported by a finding of subjective bad faith. . .Bad faith is present when an attorney knowingly or recklessly raises a frivolous argument or argues a meritorious claim for the purpose of harassing an opponent.”

Plaintiffs made false allegations and representations that Arizona voters do not vote by hand on paper ballots. However, every Arizona voter casts a ballot by hand, on

paper. This is the law in Arizona.

In Arizona, there must be a paper ballot that can be used in the event of a vote audit. It cannot be disputed that Arizona already requires and uses paper ballots. Allegations to the contrary are simply false. A system that uses paper ballots for recording votes and electronic machines for tabulating them remains a “paper-based voting system.”

Plaintiffs falsely alleged that Arizona voters cast their ballots by electronic voting machines.

In conclusion, the Court found that sanctions were warranted under Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927.

Plaintiffs made false, misleading, and unsupported factual assertions and that their claims for relief did not have an adequate factual or legal basis grounded in a reasonable pre-filing inquiry.

Plaintiffs’ counsel acted at least recklessly in unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings by seeking a preliminary injunction based on Plaintiffs’ frivolous claims, in violation of Section 1927.

Improper Purpose

Although the Court did not find that the Plaintiffs acted appropriately in this litigation, neither did it find that they acted with an improper purpose.

The Court shared the concerns expressed by other federal courts about the misuse of the judicial system to baselessly cast doubt on the electoral process in a manner that is conspicuously consistent with the plaintiffs’ political ends.

The court granted the Defendants’ motion for sanctions under Rule 11 and directed the defendants to specify their attorney’s fees in defending the case.

--------------------

Tom Fox, J. D.
Louisville, Kentucky

Basics of Kentucky auto accident law

2022-02-09T10:59:00.014-05:00

Basics of Kentucky auto accident law
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)s

What traffic accidents must be reported to the police?

If a traffic accident results in personal injury, it must be reported to the police.
If an auto accident causes a death, law enforcement must be notified immediately.
If a vehicle is rendered inoperable from a collision, Kentucky law requires that public safety officials are informed.

If the driver fails to notify officials for any reason, the responsibility falls upon the occupants of the vehicle.

For any other non-injury accident resulting only in property damage of $500 or more, the driver must file an accident report with the Kentucky State Police within ten days.

Online Kentucky State Police Civilian Collision Report
Printable KSP Collision Report PDF Download.

If a police officer responded to my collision do also I need to fill out a report?

No. The Kentucky State Police asks you not to file an accident report if the police have already done so. But, it might be smart to check that a report was actually filed and to see what it said. The police officer who filled out the report might have made a reporting mistake or may have left out an important detail. If the official accident report needs to be corrected, in your opinion, you may wish to send a letter to the KSP to explain the problem and to document your side of the story.

Should I report a collision to my insurance company?

The relationship between you and your insurance company is controlled by your insurance policy. It is a written contract that defines your rights and responsibilities. Insurance policies are not easy reading, but somewhere in that document, it tells you what you must do if you are involved in an accident. Your insurance company will not pay for any medical expenses or property damage from an accident they do not know about. You might forfeit your liability coverage if you fail to report an accident. It is nearly impossible to hide an accident from your insurance company, so there is little to be gained by not reporting it. Ask your agent what you should do.

What happens if an uninsured vehicle is involved in a traffic accident?

If any vehicle involved in an auto accident is uninsured, the law enforcement officer who investigates the accident must issue a citation to the owner of the vehicle for the violation of Kentucky's required minimum insurance law. [KRS 189.636]

Is Kentucky a "no-fault" state?

Yes. Since 1975 Kentucky law has provided basic reparations for those injured in auto accidents. It is also called Personal Injury Protection (PIP). Basic minimum insurance coverage is required for each vehicle registered in the state. The minimum required PIP coverage provides up to $10,000 coverage for each injured individual. This assures that medical bills are paid promptly and basic economic losses are covered without the delay and uncertainty of litigation.

What are the penalties for driving without insurance?

For a first offense, there is a fine of $500 to $1,000 and the possibility of up to 90 days in jail. A second offense carries a $1,000 to $2,500 fine, up to 180 days in jail, and having your driving privileges suspended for a year.

Can I sue for pain and suffering damages from a traffic accident?

Unless you have opted out of Kentucky's no-fault system, you cannot sue for any damages from an automobile accident unless:

Your medical expenses are more than $1,000,
You suffered a broken bone, or
If you suffered a permanent injury or disfigurement.

The Form of a Kentucky Pleading

2021-08-10T20:27:00.005-04:00

Download full PDF ebook: Form of a Kentucky Pleading

Introduction

This booklet is about the format of a clearly defined category
of legal paperwork. It is the type of paperwork that is filed
with a court. The form of a pleading means the layout and the
arrangement of different essential functional parts, but not the
substance or customized contents, of the papers that move civil
litigation from beginning to end. The form of a pleading includes
its appearance, but it is not limited to issues of appearance. To
say the form of a pleading is not about the specific substance of
a particular pleading is not to suggest the form of a pleading is
superficial.

The form of a pleading

Here, the word ‘pleading’ is used in a very broad sense to include
any original document a party may file with a court, including
motions, proposed orders, briefs and any other paper. Civil Rule
7.01 limits use of the word ‘pleadings’, in a technical sense, to
complaints, answers, a reply to a counterclaim, an answer to a
cross-claim, a third-party complaint and a third-party answer. For
clarity, ‘Rule 7.01 pleadings’ will be used to mark the distinction,
when needed. Otherwise, the word ‘pleading’ will be used for
any pleading, motion or other paper that must be clearly identified as
belonging with a specific civil action.

The form of a pleading is important. The form of a pleading is
mandated by the Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure. It is highly
functional.

Proceeding in small claims division is considerably different from
general civil proceedings outside the small claims arena. The small
claims division uses a simplified and limited procedure. This book
is not about small claims formats or pleadings.

However, an action that starts in the small claims division may
sometimes be bumped out of small claims and into the court’s
general jurisdiction. In that event the simplicity of small claims
ends and the information in this booklet may be of use.

--------------------

Tom Fox, J. D.

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

How to Intervene In a Kentucky Bank Garniishment

2021-08-10T19:34:00.003-04:00

The problem

With a jointly owned deposit checking or savings account, one of the named account holders may be a judgment debtor while another is not. When the judgment creditor seeks to garnish the account to collect the judgment debt, the ownership share of the non-debtor joint owner is at risk of seizure.

Kentucky law regarding the ownership rights of joint account holders is the substantive context within which the practical procedural mechanisms connected to bank garnishments are discussed. The substantive law of joint account ownership may change, while the application of Kentucky’s Rules of Civil Procedure in garnishment proceedings remains the same.

This is to say that the main focus of this book is upon the practical procedural aspects of intervention in a bank garnishment proceeding, but the problem of joint ownership is what makes the discussion relevant and interesting.

There are two interrelated issues which represent the intersection between procedure and substance. How can a non-judgment debtor account holder protect his or her ownership interest in a joint account? And, how can a non-judgment debtor account holder establish that he or she is entitled to an ownership interest in a joint account?

--------------------

Tom Fox, J. D.

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

How to beat big spending law firms??

2020-01-04T08:46:00.000-05:00

Beware of marketing gurus who claim to know marketing secrets the big dogs don't know.

The ploy of selling "secret sauce" is a fantasy.

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

Free advice for lawyers - Your Name Is Your Brand

2020-01-03T16:05:00.005-05:00

Marketing is strategy and advertising is tactics. Marketing your legal practice is a long term plan that adapts to changing circumstances. Paid advertising is merely a tool to implement strategy, and the techniques of effective advertising are constantly changing.

As an example. If a potential client sees your advertising and you seem to be a likely candidate to meet her need for professional legal services, will she immediately call your phone number and schedule a meeting?

It's doesn't happen that way very often, and it's not the fault of your advertising.

These things take time, repetition and reinforcement.

This being the 21st Century, what is your prospective client's next move?

It might be to perform a Google search of your name to find out more about you.

The information available online and what a Google search of your name discloses is not wholly within your control. It is, however, partially within your control.

To the extent that you can influence your online reputation it is the proper subject of marketing. An large advertising budget may not overcome a negative, or non-existent, reputation.

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer.

Practical AI, Law & Practice

Persuasion: How is Writing a Legal Brief Similar to Selling a Timeshare?

Unleashing the Power of AI to Write Legal Briefs Is Easier than You Might Think.

85-second AI task description for busy lawyers - Merging an Answer with a Complaint

Plagiarism, AI, and the practice of law

Summary - Ethical Implications of Plagiarism in Legal Filings:

The Distinct Nature of Legal Writing:

Different Sources, Different Standards:

The Risks of Over-Reliance on Copied Material:

Key Issues:

Discussion:

1. Is copying language from other sources without attribution in legal briefs and filings inherently deceptive?

2. Is legal writing fundamentally different from academic writing in terms of expectations around originality and attribution?

3. Should copying without attribution from different sources be treated differently from an ethical perspective? Citing language from published articles and judicial opinions seems more problematic than recycling language from one's prior work or that of other attorneys.

4. Even if not an automatic ethical violation, should attorney plagiarism be discouraged?

5. Is the use of AI-generated text plagiarism?

6. There are significant moral and philosophical differences between using the original work of a human author versus AI-generated text when it comes to plagiarism.

Conclusion

Practical Legal Prompt Engineering: A Guide

What is Legal Prompt Engineering?

A tested strategy for AI-drafted interrogatories

The Centaur as a Modern Lawyering Metaphor

AI Prompt engineering or instruction tuning for legal applications

Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument - by Kurt M. Saunders

Law as Rhetoric, Rhetoric as Argument

Developing a Mindset for Leveraging AI in Professional Growth

Conversations with a robot: AI in the practice of law - April 11, 2024

Conversations with a robot: AI in the practice of law - 4/11/2024

How to go from zero to something.

The Integration And Evolution Of Artificial Intelligence (AI) In The Legal Profession

Efficiency Improvements

The Legal Tech Startup Ecosystem

Skills Requirement

Significant Milestones in 2023

Additional Perspectives

Conclusion

FRCP Rule 33 - Interrogatories (mindmap)

Ask a Robot: How can lawyers best use ChatGPT as a practice tool to improve efficiency?

Ethical considerations for artificial intelligence in the practice of law

US ex rel. Hedstrom, et al v. Advanced Pain Management SC, Settlement Agreement

APM Receivables LLC collection lawsuits

Dobberstein Law Firm

Unclaimed funds - Sample Finder's Agreement

Kari Lake, et al., v. Katie Hobbs - FRCP 11 Sanctions

Basics of Kentucky auto accident law

Basics of Kentucky auto accident lawFrequently Asked Questions (FAQ)s

What traffic accidents must be reported to the police?

If a police officer responded to my collision do also I need to fill out a report?

Should I report a collision to my insurance company?

What happens if an uninsured vehicle is involved in a traffic accident?

Is Kentucky a "no-fault" state?

What are the penalties for driving without insurance?

Can I sue for pain and suffering damages from a traffic accident?

The Form of a Kentucky Pleading

How to Intervene In a Kentucky Bank Garniishment

How to beat big spending law firms??

Free advice for lawyers - Your Name Is Your Brand

Basics of Kentucky auto accident law
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)s