Rubin & Rothman Reviews and Complaints: What the Record Shows and What to Do (2026)

Who Rubin & Rothman is

Rubin & Rothman, LLC is a New York law firm. The New York Department of State lists it as a domestic professional service limited liability company, first filed on April 12, 1999, in Suffolk County. The firm's website calls it a creditor's rights firm and says it has represented creditors for over 50 years. Other sources give different starting points: a 2017 trade press announcement said the firm was founded in 1955, and the BBB lists a business start date of January 1, 1960. The current LLC is the 1999 filing.

The firm's website lists one address: 1787 Veterans Memorial Highway, Islandia, NY 11749. It gives 1-800-298-6058 as its main number, a fax of 631-234-1138 and an online payment portal. The BBB lists (631) 234-1500. The site carries the notice that the communication is from a debt collector.

The firm holds a New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection debt collection agency license, number 2110651, which the city's open data shows was issued in January 2023 and runs to January 31, 2027. An earlier city license ran from 2016 to January 2023. The state's attorney registration data lists 22 attorney registrations with the firm's name at the Islandia address. The BBB names Keith H. Rothman, attorney, as its principal contact, and the state data shows Keith Harvey Rothman admitted in New York in 1976.

The firm's home base is New York and New Jersey. A 2017 insideARM announcement said it had hired a managing attorney for Connecticut and Massachusetts to lead its expansion into those two states. CFPB complaints name consumers in all four states, and the recent federal dockets we found are in New York, New Jersey and Connecticut.

In the sources checked, it presents itself as a law firm working for creditors, not as a lender, funder or debt buyer.

The public record at a glance

• BBB rating and accreditation. B plus, BBB accredited since April 6, 2016, as checked on November 12, 2026.
• BBB complaints. 27 in the last three years and 11 in the last 12 months, as of November 12, 2026. The BBB lists 11 customer reviews.
• CFPB complaint database. 401 complaints name Rubin & Rothman, LLC, received from August 2013 to October 2026, as of November 12, 2026. 224 of them were received in the three years before that date and 86 in the last 12 months. 370 are filed under debt collection, and 235 of those are tagged as credit card or credit card debt.
• Federal enforcement. A search of the CFPB's enforcement actions on November 12, 2026 returned no action naming the firm. We found no federal enforcement action against it, and a web search for state attorney general or consent actions found none.
• Federal lawsuits naming the firm. CourtListener shows 152 federal dockets with Rubin and Rothman in the case name, 14 of them filed since November 12, 2023. Being named in a lawsuit is not proof of wrongdoing.

A complaint count is not a finding. The CFPB database publishes what consumers report, and the BBB displays what complainants and the business each say. Read the numbers as a map of what people dispute, not as a verdict.

What the complaints say

The CFPB data shows what consumers most often report. The top issue labels are "attempts to collect debt not owed" (87 complaints), "took or threatened to take negative or legal action" (87), "written notification about debt" (61) and "false statements or representation" (58). Inside those, the most common sub issues are not receiving enough information to verify the debt (48), debt said not to be the consumer's (43), being sued without proper notice of the lawsuit (42), the wrong amount (35), debt said to be already paid (21) and debt said to be the result of identity theft (21).

The company response is "closed with explanation" on 360 complaints. Thirty seven closed with non monetary relief and two with monetary relief, two were still in progress, and all 401 were marked as answered on time. New York accounts for 239, New Jersey for 61, Connecticut for 45 and Massachusetts for 21. Seventeen complaints carry a servicemember tag and 17 an older American tag.

Two lessons come out of those files. First, keep dated proof of every dispute, payment and court paper. Second, if you think you were never properly served, check the court's records now.

Lawsuits and court decisions

Here is what three published decisions involving the firm actually show.

• Clayson v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC (W.D.N.Y. 2010, 751 F. Supp. 2d 491). Ford Motor Credit referred a car deficiency balance of roughly $4,000 to $4,500 to the firm after a repossession and auction. The consumer sued under the FDCPA. A jury returned a defense verdict in May 2010. After trial, the court found that two answering machine messages the firm left for the consumer's mother, saying it was trying to reach her daughter about a debt, violated two FDCPA provisions on contact with third parties, and it directed judgment for the consumer on those two claims as a matter of law; we did not review what relief followed. It denied a new trial on the other claims, which concerned alleged statements about her Social Security disability funds, and it denied the firm's request for fees and sanctions against the consumer's lawyer.
• Corpac v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC (E.D.N.Y., No. 10-CV-4165, decisions of January 28, 2013 and August 1, 2013). A putative class action alleged that the firm's collection letters falsely implied that an attorney had meaningfully reviewed each account before the letter went out. The parties told the court in 2011 that they had settled, on terms totaling $87,900, including $75,000 in fees for class counsel. An objector challenged the class notice and the terms. In January 2013 the court ordered one of the firm's defense lawyers in the case to withdraw because of his past work alongside class counsel and directed a new look at notice; in August 2013 it denied reconsideration. Neither decision ruled on whether the letters broke the law, and we did not review whether the settlement was finally approved.
• Kashelkar v. Rubin & Rothman (S.D.N.Y. 2000, 97 F. Supp. 2d 383). A debtor sued Household lending entities and their lawyers, Rubin & Rothman, under racketeering and conspiracy theories after Household sued him on a line of credit and on a credit card debt it had bought. The court dismissed his claims with prejudice.
• Recent federal filings. Fourteen federal cases with the firm in the caption were filed between November 2023 and November 2026: seven in the Eastern District of New York, five in New Jersey, one in the Southern District of New York and one in Connecticut. They include Salaam v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC (D.N.J. No. 2:26-cv-11666, filed September 10, 2026), Hughes v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC (S.D.N.Y. No. 1:26-cv-00198, filed January 9, 2026) and Graciano v. Rubin & Rothman LLC (D. Conn. No. 3:25-cv-00228, filed February 13, 2025). We read only the docket information, not the pleadings, so this page does not describe their claims or outcomes.

Put plainly: the firm sues for creditors, it has been sued, one court found two FDCPA violations in a 2007 collection, and no decision we read is a broader finding against it. Read its paperwork carefully, and do not ignore it.

Why the firm is contacting you or your business

Because a creditor or a debt buyer has placed an account with it. On the consumer side, most CFPB complaints concern credit card debt, and auto debt is the next most common named type. The court decisions above show the firm working for a car lender on a deficiency balance and for Household lending entities, including Household Bank, that sued on a line of credit and on a card debt Household had bought. If you signed a personal guarantee, the creditor can pursue you as well as the company. The largest debt buyers, such as Midland Credit Management, run their own collection operations before any law firm is involved.

A letter from a law firm can come before suit, during a lawsuit, or after a judgment, when the work shifts to income executions, bank restraints or liens. The letter, the summons or the court notice tells you which stage you are in. Read it before you call.

Your rights: which rules apply to which debt

The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act applies to consumer debts. The statute defines a debt as an obligation arising from a transaction that is primarily for personal, family or household purposes. For a consumer debt, you can dispute the debt in writing and ask for verification within the window stated in the first notice. Once you dispute in writing within that window, the collector must pause collection of the disputed amount until it mails verification. A law firm that regularly collects consumer debts owed to others can be a debt collector under the statute.

A business debt is generally outside the FDCPA. A business credit card, a business loan or a supplier account is usually a commercial obligation, even when the owner signed a personal guarantee. Contract terms, court rules and general law still apply.

New York's own collection statute uses the same consumer test. General Business Law section 601 lists prohibited collection practices, and section 600 limits it to a "consumer claim": an obligation of a natural person from a transaction in which credit was offered or extended to a natural person primarily for personal, family or household purposes. The definition does include a natural person who is a co maker, endorser, guarantor or surety, but only of that kind of consumer obligation. A guarantee of a business card or a business loan sits on a business purpose transaction, so section 601 generally does not reach it.

New York City's rules follow the same line. The city's licensing law, Administrative Code section 20-489, defines a debt as an obligation of a natural person from a transaction primarily for personal, family or household purposes (the definition also covers child support). The license and the city's conduct rules for debt collectors therefore track consumer debt. The city's definition of a debt collection agency also excludes a law firm that collects only through work a licensed attorney must do, but not one that regularly does what collectors do, such as contacting debtors by mail or phone. Rubin & Rothman holds the city license.

Time limits differ too. Under New York's CPLR section 214-i, a suit arising from a consumer credit transaction must be started within three years, and a later payment does not revive an expired claim. A consumer credit transaction means credit extended to an individual primarily for personal, family or household purposes. A suit on a business contract generally falls under the six year limit in CPLR section 213. New Jersey, Connecticut and Massachusetts set their own rules.

Personal guarantees. A guarantee is a separate promise by you to pay the company's debt. It is the main reason a business account can reach your personal assets. Find the application or agreement and read the section on liability before you respond.

What to check in your own paperwork

• Who the creditor is. The letter should name the current creditor. Ask in writing whether it is the original lender or a buyer of the account. If it is a buyer, ask it to show that it owns the account.
• Which person or entity owes it. Is the account in the company's name, your name, or both? Look for a personal guarantee or a clause making you jointly liable.
• Whether it is a consumer or a business account. The answer decides whether the FDCPA, New York's section 601, the city rules and the three year consumer limit apply. Keep the application and statements that show what the credit was for.
• The balance and how it was built. Ask for an itemized statement: principal, interest, fees and any payments credited. Compare it with your own bank records.
• Whether a suit or judgment already exists. Check the court named on any papers, and search the court records for the county where you live or where the business operates. If a judgment exists, get its date, amount and index number.
• Time limits. Note the date of your last payment and which limit applies. A lawyer can tell you whether the claim is timely.

If a lawsuit has been filed

The plaintiff will be the creditor or debt buyer, with Rubin & Rothman as its lawyers. In New York, CPLR section 320 sets the general rule: a defendant must appear within 20 days after the summons is served, or within 30 days after service is complete when the summons was served another way, for example left with someone at your home or business and then mailed. The deadline that applies to you is the one stated on your summons, and courts treat it seriously.

If you do not answer, the plaintiff can ask for a default judgment, and in New York a judgment can lead to an income execution against wages, a restraint on a bank account and liens, subject to exemptions. A company sued on its own debt and an owner sued on a guarantee are separate defendants, each with its own deadline. Ask a lawyer whether your business can appear without one.

Filing an answer does not end the chance to settle. It keeps it open. This page is general information, not legal advice. If you have been sued, talk to a lawyer licensed in the state where the case was filed.

Can a balance Rubin & Rothman is collecting be settled?

Sometimes, if the creditor agrees. The firm's website says its account resolution specialists will "discuss plans and payment options" and that it will work with people who cannot pay right now or have a hardship. The decision on any reduced amount belongs to the creditor, and the firm acts for that creditor.

Whatever you agree, get it in writing before you pay: the amount, the schedule, and that it settles the account in full for every person and company named. If there is a lawsuit, the agreement should say how the case will end, and you should get a copy of what is filed with the court. If there is a judgment, ask for proof that it has been satisfied. Then check that any restraint or income execution has been released.

Business Debt Adjusters negotiates business debt, including business credit cards, business loans and merchant cash advances. We've resolved over $500 million in business debt across 11 years, and our clients rate us 4.7 stars across 246 Google reviews. We review the agreement, the guarantee, the balance and any court filings, and we tell you what is realistic before you commit to anything. Business Debt Adjusters is not a law firm and does not provide legal representation. If several debts are pressing at once, see how business debt settlement works and business credit card debt relief. If a merchant cash advance is part of the picture, see how MCA debt relief works, whether a merchant cash advance is a loan, and settlement versus bankruptcy. If the plaintiff on your papers is a debt buyer such as LVNV Funding, our LVNV Funding LLC complaints and reviews page covers that company's BBB and CFPB record.

When you need a lawyer

Settlement help and legal representation are different things. If you have been served and the deadline is close, if you have grounds to dispute the debt entirely (wrong party, identity theft, an expired time limit), or if a judgment has already been entered and you want to challenge it, talk to a defense lawyer licensed in that state.

Sources

• Rubin & Rothman, LLC, home page (creditor's rights firm, over 50 years, Islandia address, phone, NYC DCWP license number, payment options)
• New York Department of State, Active Corporations dataset (Rubin & Rothman LLC, DOS ID 2366327, domestic professional service LLC, filed April 12, 1999)
• NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection, Issued Licenses dataset (license 2110651-DCA, debt collection agency, expires January 31, 2027)
• New York State Unified Court System, NYS Attorney Registrations dataset (22 registrations at the firm's Islandia address; Keith Harvey Rothman admitted 1976)
• Better Business Bureau, Rubin & Rothman, LLC profile (B plus, accredited since 4/6/2016, 27 complaints in 3 years, 11 in 12 months)
• insideARM, August 2, 2017 announcement of the firm's Connecticut and Massachusetts expansion
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Consumer Complaint Database, company: Rubin & Rothman, LLC (401 complaints, 2013 to 2026)
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, enforcement actions search for Rothman (no results)
• Clayson v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 751 F. Supp. 2d 491 (W.D.N.Y. 2010), via CourtListener
• Corpac v. Rubin & Rothman, LLC, 920 F. Supp. 2d 345 and 10 F. Supp. 3d 349 (E.D.N.Y. 2013), via CourtListener
• Kashelkar v. Rubin & Rothman, 97 F. Supp. 2d 383 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), via CourtListener
• CourtListener federal docket search, case name Rubin AND Rothman (152 dockets; 14 filed since November 12, 2023)
• 15 U.S.C. 1692a, FDCPA definitions of consumer, debt and debt collector
• 15 U.S.C. 1692g, FDCPA validation of debts
• New York General Business Law section 600, definitions for Article 29-H (consumer claim, including guarantors of consumer obligations)
• New York General Business Law section 601, prohibited practices
• New York City Administrative Code section 20-489, debt collection agency definitions (consumer and debt), unofficial mirror
• New York CPLR section 105(f), consumer credit transaction
• New York CPLR section 214-i, three year limit for consumer credit transactions
• New York CPLR section 213, six year limit for contractual obligations
• New York CPLR section 320, time to appear after service of a summons

Facts on this page were checked against the linked sources on November 12, 2026. Business Debt Adjusters is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or authorized to represent the company described.