Andrew M. Schneiderman

Overview

Andrew Schneiderman defends and resolves challenging consumer, class action, professional liability, ERISA, and insurance coverage litigation. Andrew is regularly relied upon to defend Fortune 500 companies, debt buyers, debt collection agencies, lawyers, lending institutions, and others faced with serious, high-stakes federal and state court litigation matters. He also counsels financial services industry clients regarding their licensing, risk management, and compliance obligations.

For over 20 years, Andrew has been handling high exposure class action claims, including disputes under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, ERISA, and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Statute – Chapter 93A. He brings significant experience to resolving class action claims at all phases of development in state and federal courts across the country. Andrew has also earned a substantial track record of favorable outcomes representing attorneys in legal malpractice claims and defending management in wage-hour litigation and employment matters.

Andrew's strategic advocacy acumen emerges most distinctively in difficult litigation where conventional approaches falter. Rather than merely responding to opposing counsel's framework, he seeks to redefine the narrative architecture of complex disputes—identifying even the most obscure procedural leverage points and jurisdictional nuances that transform seemingly problematic facts into compelling legal positions. His methodological ingenuity is particularly evident in depositions, where his effective witness sequencing has repeatedly undermined class certification efforts and facilitated early dispositive motions.

Clients consistently commend Andrew's distinctive consultative ethos—his capacity to function simultaneously as zealous advocate and pragmatic business advisor. His communication style strikes that elusive balance between technical precision and accessibility, eschewing jargon without oversimplifying complex doctrinal subtleties. What resonates most with clients is his unflinching candor in risk assessments, coupled with his intuitive grasp of when principled defense serves long-term interests versus when practical resolution better advances strategic objectives.

Experience

• Dorrian v. LVNV Funding, LLC, 479 Mass. 265 (2018) (SJC held as issue of first impression that passive debt buyer need not be licensed by Division of Banks)
• Waters v. J.C. Christensen & Assocs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41075 (D. Mass. Mar. 4, 2011), summary judgment on plaintiff’s class FDCPA claims
• Barbosa v. Midland Credit Management, 981 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2020), upholding granting of motion to compel arbitration of class action claims
• Marti v. Schreiber/Cohen, LLC, 454 F. Supp. 3d 122 (D. Mass. 2020), granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s class FDCPA claims
• Vinson v. Credit Control Servs., 908 F. Supp. 2d 274 (D. Mass. 2012), argument for application of Uniform Time Act of 1966 resulted in dismissal of plaintiff’s FDCPA claim
• Harper v. Credit Control Servs., 863 F. Supp. 2d 125 (D. Mass. 2012), summary judgment granted on TCPA class action claims
• Schwartz v. CACH, LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9655 (D. Mass. Jan. 27, 2014), compelling arbitration of plaintiff’s class action claims
• Sullivan v. Credit Control Servs., 745 F. Supp. 2d 2 (D. Mass. 2010), dismissal of plaintiff’s FDCPA class action claims
• Gargano v. Liberty Int’l Underwriters, 572 F.3d 45 (1st Cir. 2009), upholding dismissal of plaintiff’s coverage claims
• Camacho v. Northland Group, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191795 (D. Mass. Sept. 17, 2014), summary judgment on plaintiff’s FDCPA claims
• Jones v. Revenue Assistance Corp., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93946 (D. Mass. Apr. 13, 2016), judgment on the pleadings on plaintiff’s FDCPA and TCPA claims
• Jones v. FMA Alliance, 978 F. Supp. 2d 84 (D. Mass. 2013), dismissal of plaintiff’s TCPA claims
• Jepson v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co., 969 F. Supp. 2d 202 (D. Mass. 2013), dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under G.L. c. 240, s. 1-5
• Rhodes v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, 44 F. Supp. 3d 137 (D. Mass. 2014), dismissing plaintiff’s claims under FCPA. and Chapter 93A
• Ins. Group v. Mr. Cesspool, LLC, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72204 (D. Mass. Jul. 19, 2010), granting summary judgment on plaintiff’s declaratory action that it had no duty to provide coverage to defendant
• Motto v. Kreppel, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80325 (D. Mass. Jun. 11, 2012), dismissing plaintiff’s claims under FDCPA, FCRA, and Chapter 93A

Honors & News

Honors

• Go to Lawyers, Commercial and Consumer Litigation, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, 2025

News

• Consumer Class Action Accuses Red Sox of ‘Drip Pricing’, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, January 29, 2026
• ‘Ironic’ No-Show Dooms Consumer Class Action at BLS, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, November 6, 2025
• Experienced Litigator with Andrew M. Schneiderman, I Heart Radio Podcast, December 12, 2024
• Class Action: Law Firm Made Empty Threats to Evict Tenants, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, March 18, 2022
• Arbitration – Credit Card – Assignment, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, December 2, 2020
• Collateral Attack on Debt Buyer Allowed to Proceed, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, November 19, 2015
• Supreme Court Ruling Could Alter Debt Practice, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, May 10, 2010
• Debt Collection Lawyers Hit with FDCPA Ruling, Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, November 16, 2009