Business Debt Law Group review.
Litigation-focused business debt law firm
An actual law firm, which most of this list is not. Built for the funder who already sued you, less efficient for the one who hasn’t.
Our verdict
Most firms on this list are negotiation shops that talk about legal leverage. Business Debt Law Group is a law firm, and that difference is the whole reason it ranks where it does. If a funder has filed, if a confession of judgment has been entered, if your accounts are already restrained, you need someone who can appear, not someone who can call.
The legal firepower score here is the second highest on this list for a reason. Vacating a judgment, challenging a UCC-1, litigating the purchase-versus-loan question, these are motions, not negotiations, and a settlement mill cannot file them.
The cost of that specialization is everything else. Litigation is slow and priced by the hour, which is the opposite of what an owner watching daily debits needs when the file is still pre-suit. For a straightforward single advance that nobody has sued over yet, you will pay more and wait longer here than at a specialist that settles and defends under one fee. The pricing is not published, so the first call has to establish the retainer and the hourly rate before anything else.
What we like
- An actual law firm, with everything that implies about privilege and standing
- Built for judgment defense, COJ challenges, and restrained accounts
- Can litigate the purchase-versus-loan and usury questions rather than gesture at them
What gave us pause
- Retainer and hourly pricing, published nowhere
- Slow and expensive for pre-litigation files that could simply be settled
- Thin independent review footprint for a firm of this age
- Coverage depends on admissions and local counsel
Who it’s for
- Owners already sued by a funder
- Anyone facing an entered or imminent confession of judgment
- Restrained accounts, garnishment, or active enforcement
Who should look elsewhere
- Pre-suit single advances that just need settling
- Owners who need a fixed, knowable cost
How Business Debt Law Group stacks up against our #1 pick
Local guides where readers use this review
In their own words
What customers wrote about Business Debt Law Group
We could not locate a customer review profile for this company. That is a finding about its public footprint, not a verdict on its service. No BBB profile found. URLs tried: https://www.bbb.org/search?find_country=USA&find_text=Business+Debt+Law+Group&find_loc=Fort+Lauderdale%2C+FL -> 'no business results'; https://www.bbb.org/search?find_country=USA&find_text=Business+Debt+Law+Group (nationwide, no location) -> page returned "No results for 'Business Debt Law Group'"; https://www.bbb.org/search?find_country=USA&find_text=Debt+Law+Gro
Quotes are reproduced exactly as written, including original spelling and punctuation, and are trimmed only with an ellipsis where marked. Where the BBB has redacted an employee’s name we show [name withheld]. Reviewers are identified only by the display name their platform shows. We pick quotes to represent the range on each profile, not to make a case, and we publish the overall rating and review count beside them so you can judge how typical any one of them is. Retrieved August 24, 2026.
The court record
Lawsuits involving Business Debt Law Group
2 matters on file, grouped by who did the suing, because those are not the same fact. We confirmed every one against a court record. 1 of them does not name this company as a party, and says so where it appears.
Lawsuits involving Business Debt Law Group (2)
Each entry is tagged by who brought it. A funder suing a settlement firm and a client suing one are close to opposite facts, so read the tag before the caption.
-
Regulator The Florida Bar v. C. Anthony Rumore Guilty plea
DispositionResolved. Ten-day suspension imposed effective 30 days from the order, plus $1,528.40 in costs, on an uncontested referee report following a conditional guilty plea.
Who this is againstC. Anthony Rumore, individually (Florida Bar No. 133388) — the INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY, NOT the firm
The Supreme Court of Florida entered a disciplinary order on November 2, 2017 suspending attorney C. Anthony Rumore for ten days and taxing costs of $1,528.40, on an uncontested referee report following a conditional guilty plea, under Rules Regulating The Florida Bar 3-4.2, 3-4.3 and 4-8.4(a), (b) and (d). The underlying conduct was personal criminal conduct: a 2013 arrest, a jury conviction for driving under the influence on November 3, 2015, and a no-contest plea on January 25, 2016 to possession of cannabis under 20 grams with adjudication withheld. The referee noted an absence of prior discipline in mitigation.
View the record ↗ -
Other Peters v. Rumore Jocelyn Serra, PPLC Active
DispositionACTIVE AND CONTESTED — not resolved. An answer to the complaint has been filed and the docket shows activity through August 5, 2026. There is no dismissal, no judgment, and no finding of any kind against the firm.
An adversary proceeding was filed against the firm in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado on April 6, 2026 and remains pending before Judge Kimberley H. Tyson; the firm has filed an answer. The identity of the plaintiff and the substance of the claims could not be determined from any free source, so no characterization of the allegations is offered here.
View the record ↗
Claims we could not verify, and therefore do not state as fact: “The identity of plaintiff 'Peters' and the substance of the claims in the Colorado bankruptcy adversary proceeding” (CourtListener docket 73153543); “State v. Rumore, Case No. 13-21303MM104A, Broward County Court — misdemeanor DUI, conviction November 3, 2015” (recited inside the Florida Bar consent judgment); “Business Debt Law Group scores approximately 3.7 out of 5 across aggregated independent reviews” (draft copy supplied for the review page). Each appears online with no court, caption, or docket behind it. We list them so you know we looked.
Court records are public and they change. A filed complaint contains allegations, not findings, and a case appearing here is not a conclusion that the company did anything wrong. Where a case ended, we say how it ended. Where we could not confirm a docket, we say that too. One limit worth knowing: free docket sources show only what someone has already paid to fetch, so a case we describe as open may have been resolved since the date shown against it. Treat every date here as the last time the record was refreshed, not as today. Last verified August 24, 2026.