This content is for informational and educational purposes only and is not legal, financial, or tax advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading or using this article. Federal, state, and local rules may differ and may change without notice. A qualified professional can review specific circumstances. The author and publisher assume no liability for actions taken based on this content.
Key Facts
- Federal level: 12 U.S.C. § 5517 includes a Bureau coordination requirement tied to examinations or report requests involving service providers subject to the subsection.
- Federal level: The same coordination language directs the Bureau to coordinate with the appropriate prudential regulator.
- Federal level: 12 U.S.C. § 5517 links the scope of the Bureau authority to the same extent as if the Bureau were an appropriate Federal bank agency under section 1867(c).
- Federal level: 12 U.S.C. § 5517 includes transaction language describing consumer debt arising when a merchant, retailer, or reseller of nonfinancial goods or services assigns, sells, or otherwise conveys the debt to another person.
- Federal level: 12 U.S.C. § 5517 includes an enactment citation to Pub. L. 111-203, title X, § 1026 (July 21, 2010).
- Federal level: The controlling codified text for this Dodd-Frank reference appears in 12 U.S.C. § 5517.
The archive entry “ABA president Lamm statement re exclusion for the practice of law in Dodd-Frank Act of 2010” reflects a 2010-era policy debate that readers often try to connect to later federal statutory language. The American Bar Association president statement archive helps preserve that historical framing, while this legal information focuses on the Federal law location where the underlying codified mechanics appear. For key Sources in Federal law, the controlling text is 12 U.S.C. § 5517 and its enactment record in Public Law 111-203.
- How the archive framing maps to an operative federal provision
- Where the operative statutory language appears today
- The coordination requirement in 12 U.S.C. § 5517
- How the statute ties the trigger to specific transaction patterns
- The enactment record that created the codified provision
- Comparing historical framing and codified text
- Why this Federal mechanics matter even in an archive recovery
- Bottom line for reading the archive alongside Federal law
- Sources
How the archive framing maps to an operative federal provision
The legacy page title points to a Dodd-Frank-era “exclusion for the practice of law” discussion. In archive recovery, the goal usually stays descriptive: it preserves what the historical item was trying to reference, then centers the current codified statute that supplies the operative legal mechanics rather than the advocacy framing.
Where the operative statutory language appears today
The Federal statutory text associated with the enactment reference appears in 12 U.S.C. § 5517. That codified section ties the relevant provision to the Dodd-Frank enactment record identified through Pub. L. 111-203, and it includes both supervision-related coordination language and technical transaction-language mechanics.
The coordination requirement in 12 U.S.C. § 5517
In 12 U.S.C. § 5517, the statutory text directs the Bureau to coordinate with the appropriate prudential regulator when the Bureau conducts an examination or requires any report from a service provider subject to the subsection. This matters for archive recovery because it shows how the statutory text builds in inter-agency coordination as part of certain supervisory activity involving service providers.
How the statute ties the trigger to specific transaction patterns
The same Federal provision also uses transaction language to describe the circumstances under which consumer debt arises. It addresses situations where a merchant, retailer, or reseller of nonfinancial goods or services assigns, sells, or otherwise conveys the debt to another person. That kind of technical statutory category often drives whether a regulatory “category” is triggered, which can make historical debate terminology feel broader than the codified mechanics.
The enactment record that created the codified provision
The codified reference in 12 U.S.C. § 5517 points back to Public Law 111-203, specifically title X, § 1026, enacted July 21, 2010. In other words, the archival Dodd-Frank-era framing traces back to a named statutory enactment section that later became part of the U.S. Code.
Comparing historical framing and codified text
A historical statement can capture why an issue drew attention in 2010, but it cannot replace the statute that Congress enacted and that appears today as codified text. The table below shows that relationship at a high level for this Dodd-Frank reference.
| Item | What it contributes | What it does not replace |
|---|---|---|
| 2010 ABA president statement archive entry | Historical context for how the issue was discussed during the Dodd-Frank buildup | The operative statutory mechanics in the U.S. Code |
| Current 12 U.S.C. § 5517 | The controlling Federal language, including coordination language and transaction-language mechanics | The historical debate’s emphasis, phrasing, or framing |
Why this Federal mechanics matter even in an archive recovery
Archive recovery works best when it distinguishes (1) the historical reasons a topic received attention from (2) the statutory instructions that actually govern the Federal supervisory structure described in the codified text. Here, the coordination requirement tied to examinations or report requests and the transaction-language triggers both appear in the Federal provision itself, which helps modern readers understand what the Dodd-Frank reference is grounded in as written.
Bottom line for reading the archive alongside Federal law
This archive item can function as historical context for the 2010 debate, while the operative Federal analysis stays anchored to 12 U.S.C. § 5517 and its enactment record in Pub. L. 111-203. This article covers Federal law and does not address State rules, which often sit in separate regulatory and legal frameworks.
