The question of whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is constitutional is once again being raised, this time in a lawsuit filed against it by a California firm that provides debt collection support to law firms.

The complaint was filed on Monday in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Kimberly Pisinski, a bankruptcy attorney based in Enfield, Connecticut, and Morgan Drexen, a firm based in Costa Mesa, California and incorporated in Nevada. Pisinski retains Morgan Drexen as a non-lawyer assistant that provides her with paralegals and support staff.

They claim the CFPB's structure, which “insulates it from political accountability and internal checks and balances” is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. They also claim the agency has engaged in “abusive practices,” including attempts to regulate law practices, a function they say is reserved for state bars. The Bureau has attempted to collect attorney-client protected material, they allege, and is guilty of “overreaching demands for, and mining of, personal information of American citizens.”

The last allegation, they point out, is also the subject if a Government Accountability Office investigation that commenced on July 12 following a Congressional hearing into reports the CFPB was purchasing information on roughly 10 million consumers from credit reporting bureaus.

Morgan Drexen provides third-party support services and workflow software to attorneys, many of whom specialize in debt resolution. It is opposing a CFPB Civil Investigative Demand that seeks thousands of personally identifiable documents for Pisinski's clients. The Bureau is requesting details of when clients talked to their attorney, for how long, all notes, the amount paid for services, and the nature of their consultation. Pisinski says this data should be protected as privileged information.

In the complaint, Morgan Drexen says it was notified in April that the CFPB was considering an enforcement action against it. Among its concerns were that attorneys supported by the firm were in violation of telemarketing rules and that its hourly rates for bankruptcy services were illegal “upfront” fees.

On May 8, Morgan Drexen responded, in writing, to refute the allegations and challenge the CFPB's jurisdiction over the law practices it works with. CFPB agents allegedly responded that the only way the firm can comply with its directives is to stop providing non-attorney services to lawyers who offer debt settlement services.

"At some point, this agency, which has expansive powers to write its own rules, needs to be reeled in," Pisinski said in a statement. "Americans facing bankruptcy have enough to deal with without having the personal, privileged details of their financial troubles seized by the federal government for an unknown purpose."

The latest lawsuit isn't the first legal challenge to the CFPB's broadly defined powers under the Dodd-Frank Act. In June 2012, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative policy group, and co-plaintiffs the State National Bank of Big Spring, Texas and the 60 Plus Association, challenged the constitutionality of the Dodd-Frank Act on grounds that the law's creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau exceeds Congressional  authority.

The groups filed their lawsuit in federal district court in Washington, D.C. Among their complaints are that the CFPB was established with too much independence because Congress cannot set its budget and the President cannot remove the CFPB director, barring special circumstances. In June, Attorneys general from Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Texas and West Virginia joined plaintiffs in the still pending lawsuit.