Dennis.Harrison@jaxlegalaid.org

With the 2025 legislative session in full swing, Jacksonville Area Legal Aid is watching several pieces of legislation that could affect indigent clients. Among them is a proposal that would reduce funding for legal aid services statewide. Florida is one of just two states that doesn’t fund civil legal aid for the poor through the state budget. Instead, Florida relies on something called the Interest on Trust Accounts, administered by the Florida Bar Foundation—a fund that is currently on the legislative agenda. We discuss what locals—and lawmakers—need to know. Guest: Jim Kowalski, president and chief executive officer at Jacksonville Area Legal Aid.

A controversial bill, Senate Bill 232 (SB 232), that could have significantly weakened Florida’s consumer protection laws was struck down in a Senate committee this week. The bill aimed to limit the scope of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) by changing the definition of who could be held accountable for deceptive debt collection practices. Currently, the law prohibits any person from using fraudulent, deceptive, or abusive tactics to collect a debt, protecting consumers from scams, harassment, and misrepresentation. However, SB 232 sought to narrow the law’s focus to apply only to formal debt collectors, which consumer advocates warned would create a loophole that bad actors, such as fraudulent contractors and predatory businesses, could exploit. This change would have made it harder for Florida residents to seek legal recourse against scammers.

Jacksonville Area Legal Aid President & CEO Jim Kowalski is urging Florida legislators to oppose SB 232, which would limit the application of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA) to debt collectors, leaving the door open for those who commit consumer fraud. “This legislation would gut our ability to combat scammers and fraudsters,” Kowalski said. “We use the FCCPA extensively in our cases involving scammers and fraudsters, specifically those involved in door-to-door scams involving the elderly, as well as unscrupulous landlords who target many of our lower-income clients.” Such entities are not covered by the federal consumer protection law that is a counterpart to the FCCPA. Kowalski cites the example of a local senior who was the victim of a door-to-door home renovation scam, where the fraudsters installed tinfoil in her attic along with a tiny fan, and charged her more than $6,000 after telling her it would be free due to tax credits. The scammer then sued her to foreclose on a lien.