In Nielsen v. Dickerson (7th Cir. 2002) 307 F.3d 623, the creditor, Household Bank, which issued credit cards, engaged Attorney Dickerson to provide legal services to Household Bank in connection with its debt collection activities. The district court found that, in reality, Household "'used Dickerson's name and letterhead' to give Household's debtors the false impression that someone other than Household -- more particularly, an attorney -- had become involved in the effort to collect the amounts that these debtors owed to Household." (Nielsen, supra, 307 F.3d at p. 634.) The Neilsen court observed: "That determination, of course, rests on the district court's threshold finding that Dickerson was not meaningfully involved in the collection of Household's debts." (Ibid.) Agreeing with the district court's findings, the Neilsen court concluded that because "Dickerson was not meaningfully involved in the effort to collect Household's debts" and "the letter he sent to Household's debtors was not truly 'from' Dickerson . . . Household should be treated as a 'debt collector' under 15 U.S.C. 1692e(3) and (10)." (Nielsen, supra, 307 F.3d at p. 634.)