100 B.R. 749 (1989)
In re J.E. JENNINGS, INC., d/b/a Kids Point of View, Debtor.
Bankruptcy No. 83-03251S.
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
June 20, 1989.
*750 Kenneth F. Carobus, Philadelphia, Pa., for applicants.
James J. O'Connell, Asst. U.S. Trustee, Philadelphia, Pa., U.S. Trustee.
Erwin L. Pincus, Philadelphia, Pa., for debtor.

OPINION
DAVID A. SCHOLL, Bankruptcy Judge.
On February 13, 1989, the district court, per the Honorable Joseph L. McGlynn, Jr., in a Memorandum of Decision reported at 96 B.R. 500, vacated and remanded our Opinion and Order of November 10, 1986, reported at 67 B.R. 106. In that Opinion, we had denied Applications for Compensation filed on behalf of Albert Vogel, appointed as Secretary (hereinafter referred to as "the Secretary") of the Official Unsecured Creditors' Committee (hereinafter "the Committee") by this court on September 13, 1983; and for expenses incurred by four members of the Committee: Blue Bell, Inc. (hereinafter "Blue"); Health Tex, Inc. (hereinafter "Health"); Calabash Fashions, Ltd. (hereinafter "Calabash"); and Tulip Tops, a division of American Argo Corp. (hereinafter "Tulip") (Hereinafter these parties are collectively referred to as "the Members" and the Secretary and the Members are referred to collectively as "the Applicants").
In our earlier Opinion, we had reasoned that the exclusion of official committees from the scope of 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(3)(D) precluded any allowances on either of the Applications. The district court, meanwhile, held that, while § 503(b)(3)(D) was not a basis for allowance of such compensation, reimbursement should have been allowed to the applicants under § 503(b)(1)(A),[1] which states as follows:
(b) After notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, other than claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title, including
(1)(A) the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate, including wages, salaries, or commissions for services rendered after the commencement of the case; . . .
Having ascertained that the record in this case which was to have been remanded to us was lost by the district court clerk's office sometime after February 13, 1989, we entered an Order of April 10, 1989, directing counsel for the Applicants to recreate the record and scheduling a conference to determine how this court should proceed on remand on April 26, 1989. Only counsel for the Applicants appeared and argued that Judge McGlynn's Opinion required us to grant their compensation and costs in full as requested. We disagreed, observing that, if this were so, Judge McGlynn would have remanded the matter to us with a direction to enter such an order, rather than, as he did, remanding it generally. We therefore entered an Order of April 27, 1989, requiring the Secretary and the Members to file Supplemental Applications in accordance with In re Meade Land & Development Co., Inc., 527 F.2d *751 280 (3d Cir.1975); In re Metro Transportation Co., 78 B.R. 416, 410 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1987); and In re Mayflower Associates, 78 B.R. 41, 48 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987), on or before May 26, 1989; and advising counsel for the Debtor and the United States Trustee that they had until June 15, 1989, to file and serve any Objections to the aforesaid Amended Applications. We further stated that, if no Objections were filed, we would enter an Order in reference to the Amended Applications without a further hearing.
The Amended Applications were timely filed on May 22, 1989. However, their conformity with the foregoing court decisions, as will be discussed below, is doubtful. They were accompanied by a short Memorandum of Law in which the Applicants reiterated their view that it was inappropriate for this court to review these Applications and that it would be contrary to the Opinion of Judge McGlynn to do other than approve them in full as submitted. The United States Trustee filed Objections to both Amended Applications, pointing out that the lack of receipts for expenses rendered these submissions out of compliance with Mayflower. Those Objections implicitly decline to accept the Applicants' contention that it is beyond the province of this court to review these Applications to determine if they complied with the Opinions establishing the procedures for submission of fee applications.
The issue of our duties in reference to these Applications is our first subject of discussion. The Applicants concede that we are obliged to independently review applications of professionals submitted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(1), whether objections are raised thereto or not. See In re J.A. & L.C. Brown Co., 75 B.R. 539, 539-40 (E.D.Pa.1987). However, they point out that applications of professionals pursuant to § 330(a) are allowable as administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2). Judge McGlynn has held that the Applications for compensation in issue, following principally In re Evans Products Co., 62 B.R. 579, 582-83 (S.D.Fla.1986), were allowable under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A). The Applicants contend that this distinction is highly significant. Cited are several cases which hold that the duties of Committee secretaries are "ministerial or mechanical" and that hence the Secretary is not a "professional."[2]In re Century Machine Tools, Inc., 43 B.R. 122, 125 (S.D.Fla.1984); In re Attorneys Office Management, Inc., 40 B.R. 127, 129-30 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1984); and In re Barsky, 17 B.R. 396, 397 (Bankr. E.D.Pa.1982). The Applicants also quote a passage in Evans Products stating that, rather than requiring a "substantial contribution" from committee members as is required by § 503(b)(3)(D), such tasks "are presumed to be expenses incurred towards the betterment of the estate and to the benefit of the estate." 62 B.R. at 853. The applicants apparently believe that this presumption shields their applications from court scrutiny.
The proposition advanced by the Applicantsthat the court must scrutinize the requests for compensation of only professionals and not their Applications, because they are not professionalsdoes not seem very logical.[3] Any awards of compensation to any persons, professionals or not, from assets of the estate, even to creditor representatives, diminishes the assets available for distribution to the creditor-body as a whole. Examination of general principles applicable to claims under § 503(b)(1) and the authorities cited by the Applicants reveal that, indeed, the Applicants' remarkable proposition that they must be treated differently than "mere" professionals cannot be sustained.
Administrative expenses, given as they are a first priority in distribution ahead of all creditors' claims, except those accorded *752 super-priority status, see 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(1), are traditionally limited to "actual and necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate after the filing of the petition." 4 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY, ¶ 503.03, at 503-14 (15th ed. 1989). Moreover, the terms "actual" and "necessary," which themselves appear in § 503(b)(1)(A), "must be observed with scrupulous care." Id., ¶ 503.04, at 503-23.
We have consistently held that § 503(b)(1)(A) must be "read narrowly" to preserve the debtor's scarce resources for absolutely necessary purposes in order to provide the debtor the best possible opportunity for a successful rehabilitation which will work to the ultimate benefit of all creditors. See In re American International Airways, Inc., 77 B.R. 490, 494-95 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987); and In re Grant Broadcasting of Philadelphia, Inc., 71 B.R. 891, 897-98 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987). Accord, e.g., In re Dant & Russell, Inc., 853 F.2d 700, 706-07 (9th Cir.1988); Trustees of Amalgamated Insurance Fund v. McFarlin's, Inc., 789 F.2d 98, 101 (2d Cir.1986); Southern Railway Co. v. Johnson Bronze Co., 758 F.2d 137, 140-43 (3d Cir.1985); and In re Fred Swain, Inc., 97 B.R. 660, 661 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1989).
Therefore, as we read § 503(b), court scrutiny is implicitly required as to all administrative claims allowable pursuant thereto. This is particularly true of claims under § 503(b)(1)(A). The scrutiny required under § 330(a)(2) to make certain that claims under § 503(b)(2) are "actual, necessary expenses" would therefore appear to be identical to that required to allow "actual, necessary costs and expenses" under § 503(b)(1)(A).
None of the cases cited by the Applicants support the notion that courts should not scrutinize the applications of creditors' committee officers and members for compensation. The Century Machine court concludes that the committee secretary in issue there performed his duties as a "professional person," 43 B.R. at 125, and hence was subject to § 330(a)(2). The Attorneys Office Management decision involved the issue of whether a firm which performed services for individual creditors could also act as committee secretary. The court allowed the firm to do so, but only because it concluded that the tasks of a committee secretary were not only so ministerial as to not be considered those of a "professional person," 40 B.R. at 129-30, but also to preclude any compensation whatsoever for such services from the estate. 40 B.R. at 129. This is hardly the result sought by the Secretary here. The comments of Judge King in Barsky were made in the context of denial of compensation to counsel for the creditors' committee for services which appeared to be the province of the committee secretary. Hence, compensation for the services for which compensation is sought here were disallowed in Barsky.
Finally, the Evans Products case, which the Applicants argue that Judge McGlynn followed, concludes with the statement that a committee member "must make some showing to the bankruptcy judge so that the judge can distill those expenses that are not reimbursable from those that are." 62 B.R. at 583. The "presumption" of betterment to the estate by a committee member's services is therefore clearly not irrebuttable in the eyes of the Evans Products court, as the Applications here apparently argue.
It is therefore clear that scrutiny of the Applications in issue here is necessary. We also conclude that our Order of April 27, 1989, holding the Applicants to the same standards as professionals in submission of applications for compensation was entirely appropriate. We shall therefore scrutinize these Amended Applications to see how they measure up to the same standards of Meade Land, Mayflower, and Metro Transportation, supra, to which we have held that all professionals, see, e.g., In re 31-33 Corp., 100 B.R. 744, 746-47 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1989), and trustees, see In re Greenley Energy Holdings of PA, Inc., 94 B.R. 854, 857-58 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1989), and thus all parties requesting compensation out of the estate proceeds, must comply.
*753 We first turn to the Secretary's Application. The dates, descriptions of services, and hours expended appear identical to the Secretary's earlier submission, as are the sums demanded, $5,958.25 as compensation for services and $325.00 for three items of costs, disclosed only as "POSTAGE AND MAILING" ($150), "TELEPHONE CALLS" ($125), and "MEALS" ($50).
We will accept the statement of the Applicants' counsel that the total hours expended by the Secretary itemized in his application compute to 47 hours, 40 minutes. The Secretary, without reciting any basis, now tells us that he computed his hourly rate as $125 per hour. This rate of compensation, given that it computed to the full amount of compensation sought to be recovered by the Secretary, is, of course, most convenient.
The first issue is how we determine whether $125 per hour is an appropriate rate of compensation for the Secretary. In the case of attorneys, and, we believe, all professionals, the starting point of calculation is the "normal billing rate" of that professional. See In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litigation, 751 F.2d 562, 590-91 (3d Cir.1984); Meade Land, supra, 527 F.2d at 283; and Lindy Bros. Builders, Inc. v. American Radiator & Standard Sanitary Corp., 487 F.2d 161, 167-69 (3d Cir.1973). The burden of proof is upon the applicant to present his "normal billing rate," see In re Sly, 77 B.R. 115, 118 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1986), and then to convince us that this rate is appropriately applied in the case in point. See In re Shaffer-Gordon Associates, Inc., 68 B.R. 344, 350-51 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1986).
The Secretary here has advanced absolutely nothing to meet his burden, even after our specific directive that he comply with, e.g., Meade Land. We would therefore be justified in denying his Application entirely on this basis.
However, instead we have attempted to carefully review the Application and attempt to measure the value of these services. We agree with the Secretary's own assessment that his tasks were ministerial. Accord, Attorneys Office Management, supra, 40 B.R. at 129-30. The services of the Secretary here are clearly more likened to those of a legal secretary in a law firm than to, for example, a federal cabinet member, e.g., the "Secretary" of State. We note that secretarial tasks are, when requested by professional firms, consistently viewed as so ministerial as to be considered overhead. See, e.g., Meade Land, 527 F.2d at 284; In re Motor Freight Express, 80 B.R. 44, 47 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1987); Metro Transportation, supra, 78 B.R. at 419; and In re Amatex Corp., 70 B.R. 624, 627 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.1985).
In the relatively rare instances where compensation of non-attorneys, such as paralegals, has surfaced as an issue, it is apparent that the rates of compensation allowed are very modest. See In re First Software Corp., 79 B.R. 108, 123 (Bankr.D. Mass.1987) (paralegals normally not allowed more than $30 per hour); and In re Factory Tire Distributors, Inc., 71 B.R. 723, 728 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1987) ("We . . . compensate paralegals at $20 per hour not $40 per hour").
The Applicants have not cited any cases to us involving rates of compensation allowed to either Committee Secretaries or legal secretaries, which is not surprising, since such parties have rarely been compensated at all. We doubt that rates for compensation of legal secretaries would exceed those of most paralegals. We have therefore exercised extreme liberality in deciding to award the Secretary a $50.00 hourly rate, a figure that we believe would be the envy of every legal secretary in our community.
We are also compelled to strike certain entries on the Secretary's Application. Services totalling six hours and one minute were performed not only prior to the Secretary's appointment on September 23, 1983, but prior to his application for appointment on September 9, 1983. Pre-appointment services are impermissible unless specific appointment nunc pro tunc allowing same is authorized. See, e.g., In re F/S Airlease II, Inc. v. Simon, 844 F.2d 99, 105-08 (3d Cir.1988); In re Arkansas Co., 798 F.2d 645, 646, 648-50 (3d Cir.1986); and In re TM Carlton House Partners, Ltd., 93 B.R. 875, 876-77 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. *754 1988). One hour, 20 minutes was spent on matters in connection with the fee application (see entries of November 17, 1983; November 18, 1983; May 6, 1984; and June 29, 1984). Such time is not compensable from the funds of debtor-estates. See J.A. & L.C. Brown, supra, 75 B.R. at 540; and Shaffer-Gordon, supra, 68 B.R. at 348-50.
We shall therefore allow the Secretary to recover, for purposes of rounding off, compensation for services for 40 hours of the 47 hours, 40 minutes claimed, at $50 per hour, or a total of $2,000. In so concluding, we have been very liberal in evaluating the remainder of the fee Application. Many of the entries reference conversations with individuals without reciting the specific purpose therefor. Such entries would normally be disallowed in their entirety. See, e.g., Meade Land, supra, 527 F.2d at 282-84; Mayflower, supra, 78 B.R. at 47; and Amatex, supra, 70 B.R. at 627-28. We will allow them here only because the hourly rate allowed is, relative to professionals, modest. Entries such as mailing out notices would be disallowed if we considered the services of the Secretary to be in the realm of a professional. However, in light of our reduction of the hourly rate to a standard appropriate for a party performing ministerial tasks, we are willing to allow the Secretary to obtain compensation for performing ministerial tasks. Many of the entries would, however, be reduced or disallowed if we compensated the Secretary at his requested rate of $125 per hour, which is appropriate for a professional.
The request for costs, while setting forth a rather modest bottom-line figure of $325.00, is, as the Untied States Trustee pointed out, totally out of compliance with Metro Transportation, 78 B.R. at 420; and Mayflower, supra, 78 B.R. at 47-48, despite the specific statement in our Order of April 27, 1989, that the guidelines in those cases must be followed. Specifically, no receipts for the postage costs, telephone costs, and transportation appear. Nor can it be ascertained to what specific undertakings these requests for compensation relate. The requests are for such round numbers that their accuracy is suspect. While we would clearly be justified in denying this entire request, in light of the foregoing, we are inclined to allow a $150 "compromise" figure, much as we did in Metro Transportation, supra, 78 B.R. at 419.
We now turn to the Members' requests for compensation. The striking feature of these submissions, in contrast to the Secretary's failure to supplement his Application despite the intervention of our Order of April 27, 1989, is their variance from the previous submissions of the Members on November 14, 1985.
Blue originally sought air fare, from Greensboro, North Carolina, for three meetings, totalling $693.00. It now concedes that, two of the meetings being prepetition, it is only entitled to one fare of $257.00 to attend a Committee meeting on October 31, 1983.[4] It also includes, for the first time, additional entries for transportation, lodging, tips, meals, and phone totalling $153.38. In lieu of receipts, see Metro Transportation, supra, 78 B.R. at 420; and Mayflower, supra, 78 B.R. at 47-48, we were provided with copies of Blue's letter to the Secretary and Blue's internal reimbursement vouchers attached to its original Application. We do not consider these documents adequate substitutes for receipts. We are disinclined to allow items of costs not requested previously which are far in excess of those requested by the other Members for the same matters. We shall therefore confine Blue's allowance to $257.00.
Health, located in Cumberland, Rhode Island, has, like Blue, reduced its transportation claim from that for three meetings, at $866.80, to $278.60, the cost of transportation to only the October 31, 1983, meeting. Despite the absence of receipts (only a letter to the Secretary is submitted for this purpose), we will allow the $278.60 sum requested. We observe that, unlike Blue, this is the only sum presently requested by Health.
*755 Calabash, located in New York City, has scaled down a previous request of $100.75 to $50.37. No receipts are enclosed; and the entries on the previous request are halved without explanation, suggesting that the earlier demand included costs expended on behalf of a companion.[5] Despite our reservations, the figure now requested is sufficiently modest that we will allow it.
Tulip, making a far shorter trip than Calabash from Reading, Pennsylvania, has excised $63.30 arising from a pre-petition meeting from a previous claim for $134.53, and has now submitted a totally undocumented demand for $71.23. The greater part of this is $41.63 for "meals." This figure is completely out of line with the requests of the other Members as compensation for meals. Without some support for the assertion that this figure is reasonable, we suspect that it may represent an attempt to have the estate pick up the tab for a lavish dinner in the "big city." We will reduce this party's total allowance to $50.00.
An Order consistent with this Opinion will be entered.
NOTES
[1]  In so holding, Judge McGlynn also implicitly rejected the reasoning of the only prior decision in this area in this court, In re Windsor Communications Group, Inc., 54 B.R. 504 (Bankr.E.D. Pa.1985), in which our predecessor, the Honorable William A. King, Jr., held that such compensation was allowable only if Committee members had made a "substantial contribution" to the case, as required by § 503(b)(3)(D). Windsor Communications therefore concluded, contrary to our earlier Opinion, that official committees were to be treated the same as "other" committees. Judge McGlynn, while agreeing with our Opinion that official committees were excluded from § 503(b)(3)(D), held that compensation was allowable to such committees and the Secretary on another basis, i.e., § 503(b)(1)(A). Cases following the various reasoning of Judge McGlynn, Judge King, and our original Opinion are collected in the Opinions of Judge McGlynn and this court.
[2]  We note that no reasoning is proffered regarding the status of the Members. Clearly, they were not acting as professionals. We are willing to consider the status of all of the Applicants as the same in our analysis.
[3]  As we note hereafter, the Members themselves have voluntarily withdrawn certain requests which they now recognize were inappropriate. See page 755 & n. 5 infra. Under the reasoning herein advanced by them, we would nevertheless have been powerless to reduce the full amount which these parties originally sought!
[4]  We note that, had we adhered to the principle suggested by the Applicants that we were not empowered to review these requests, we would have been obliged to compensate Blue for all of the sums originally demanded by it, including these now admittedly inappropriate requests.
[5]  See page 754 & n. 4 supra. It is readily apparent that an "honor system" in such matters is unworkable.


506 F.3d 1039 (2007)
Lydia ROSARIO, Audra Phillips, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
AMERICAN CORRECTIVE COUNSELING SERVICES, INC., Don R. Mealing, Kelly Keahy, Joseph Ayala, Denise Nielson, Defendants-Appellees,
No. 06-16507.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
November 1, 2007.
*1040 Deepak Gupta, Pub. Citizen Lit. Group, Washington, DC, O. Randolph Bragg, Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.
Kimbley A. Kearney, Clausen Miller, P.C., David Luther Hartsell, McGuire Woods, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before CARNES and BARKETT, Circuit Judges, and COHN,[*] District Judge.
*1041 COHN, District Judge:
This is an appeal by Lydia Rosario and Audra Phillips from the entry of summary judgment against them on their claims of violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).

I. BACKGROUND
Florida statutes authorize state attorneys to establish a bad check diversion program, "either within the state attorney's office or through an independent contractor." Fla. Stat. § 832.08. The Twentieth Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office ("SAO") contracts with American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc. ("ACCS"), a private company based in California, for ACCS to operate a Bad Check Restitution Program ("Program") on behalf of the SAO for the purpose of recovery of restitution for victims of non-sufficient funds and account-closed type checks. Plaintiffs-Appellants each had check referred to the Program. Each received notices and letters sent by ACCS on SAO stationery offering participation in the Program. The letters sought payment of the amount of the check, plus fees of at least $125, including $75 for participation in an eight-hour educational class. The letters state that failure to participate may result in criminal prosecution by the SAO.
Plaintiffs allege that ACCS and various individual officers of ACCS[1] have violated numerous provisions of the FDCPA and FCCPA. In particular, Plaintiffs allege violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1692d (harassment); § 1692e(1) (false or deceptive claims regarding criminal justice powers); § 1692e(2)(A) (misrepresenting legal status of debt); § 1692e(4) (creating false impression that civil collection matters criminally enforceable); § 1692e(5) (making threats of action not intended or that could not legally be taken); § 1692e(7) (implying consumer committed crime); § 1692e(9) (overall appearance of letters gives impression they are from State Attorney's office); § 1692e(10) (employing deceptive means to collect a debt or obtain information about a consumer); § 1692e(11) (failing to contain warning that letter is from debt collector); § 1692e(13) (giving false impression that letters are legal process); § 1692e(14) (using name other than own, i.e. State Attorney); § 1692f(1) (requesting amounts not authorized by contract or Florida law); and § 1692g(a) (failing to provide validation notice).
The particular allegations as to the FCCPA include Fla. Stat. § 559.72(1) (simulating a law enforcement officer); § 559.72(7) (harassment); § 559.72(9) (asserting existence of right when known such right does not exist); § 559.72(10) (simulating legal process or giving appearance of being approved by a government agency, when it is not); § 559.72(11) (using attorney's stationery); and § 559.72(12) (oral communication giving false impression that person is associated with an attorney).
After a period of discovery, Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their claims, while Defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds they are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity as an agent or instrumentality of the SAO, which is an arm of the State of Florida. The District Court granted Defendants' motion, dismissing the case without prejudice due to Eleventh Amendment immunity. *1042 Rosario v. American Corrective Counseling Services, Inc., 2006 WL 3313845 (M.D.Fla. Nov.15, 2006). Plaintiffs filed this appeal.

II. THE BAD CHECK PROGRAM
A review of the relationship between ACCS and the SAO begins with the contract between ACCS and the SAO and the governing state law. The contract explicitly states that the relationship is one of an independent contractor hired to run the Program. The contract prohibits ACCS from acting as an agent for the State Attorney or Twentieth Judicial Circuit. In addition to this clear contractual intent for ACCS to be an independent contractor, the Florida law that authorizes state attorneys to establish bad check diversion programs also specifically states that such programs may exist "either within the state attorney's office or through an independent contractor." Fla. Stat. § 832.08.
The SAO for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit did run an in-house diversion program prior to the implementation of the contract with ACCS in December of 1998. Once ACCS was hired to run the program, however, certain procedures changed. After bad check complaints are received by the SAO, typically through law enforcement agencies, SAO clerical staff review them only to confirm that the check writer, recipient and amount correspond to the list of checks in a particular bundle, and to pull out those checks over $1,000. There is no attorney review prior to the SAO's sending of the check bundles to ACCS at its California offices.[2]
ACCS then sends form letters that have been approved by an assistant state attorney at the SAO to bad check writers. These letters appear to be on SAO letterhead; however, the contact mailing address and phone number are separately maintained by ACCS and not the SAO. The letters offer participation in the Program, which requires the participant to make payment of the full amount of the check, statutory fees, a class fee of $75, and other fees and to attend an eight-hour class. Payments made under the Program are payable to the SAO and deposited in an account controlled by ACCS. On a regular weekly or monthly basis, ACCS distributes the funds from this account to victims, the SAO (which receives a percentage of fees per the contract), and itself (which gets the educational fee plus a percentage of other fees). If a bad check writer does not complete participation in the Program, ACCS sends the check and complaint form back to the SAO. At that point, attorneys in the SAO determine whether to prosecute the case, depending upon their own analysis of the case.
During the time ACCS processes the bad checks and seeks payment from the bad check writers, the SAO does not have regular contact with ACCS. There is no supervision of the day-to-day activities of ACCS, although the letters sent by ACCS have previously been approved by the SAO. A monthly report is prepared by ACCS describing the number of checks, a breakdown of checks by the largest ten victims (merchants), an accounting of payments *1043 from the bank account, and a check to the SAO from that account.
The contract also contains an indemnity clause which requires ACCS to indemnify and defend the Twentieth Judicial Circuit and its officers, thus including the SAO, from and against any and all claims and losses, "unless arising out of the sole negligence or willful conduct of Judicial Circuit." R. 160-4, 17.

III. THE DISTRICT COURT DECISION
The district court agreed with Defendants as to their Eleventh Amendment immunity argument and granted summary judgment for Defendants. In granting this motion, the district court relied upon Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc. v. Beech Street Corp., 208 F.3d 1308, 1311 (11th Cir.2000) ("Shands"), concluding that ACCS acted as an agent for the SAO in connection with the events that form the basis for the claims. The district court did reference the Florida statute that authorized state attorneys to utilize independent contractors to establish a bad check program, and considered the various contractual requirements for SAO oversight of ACCS. The district court also noted that ACCS was an independent contractor who had no authority to bind the SAO, and that ACCS agreed to indemnify and defend the SAO as to all claims and losses as a result of its work. This Court reviews de novo the grant of a summary judgment motion, viewing the facts and drawing reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Kempthorne, 477 F.3d 1250, 1254 (11th Cir.2007).

IV. ELEVENTH AMENDMENT IMMUNITY
The Supreme Court has "consistently held that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State." Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 144, 113 S.Ct. 684, 687, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993). The immunity does not extend to counties or other units of government. However, the Supreme Court has also said that "only states and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law." N. Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Chatham County, Ga., 547 U.S. 189, 193, 126 S.Ct. 1689, 1693, 164 L.Ed.2d 367 (2006). See also Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1308 (11th Cir.2003) (en banc). In this case, there is no dispute that the SAO is an arm of the State of Florida. Rather, the dispute concerns the status of ACCS and its relationship with the SAO.

A. Shands

The test that governs whether Eleventh Amendment immunity may extend to defendants other than the state is discussed in Shands. The factors to be considered are as follows: "(1) how state law defines the entity, (2) what degree of control the State maintains over the entity, and (3) from where the entity derives its funds and who is responsible for judgments against the entity." Shands, 208 F.3d at 1311. In Shands, the plaintiff hospital sued third-party claims administrators for the state employees' health plan for non-payment under the network agreement. The Florida statute governing the state employees health plan authorized the Florida Department of Management Services ("DMS") to employ a professional association to process claims. Fla. Stat. Ann. § 110.123(3)(d). The contract between the state agency and the administrator had a clause allowing for termination by the DMS for "convenience," for inspection and audit rights by DMS, and *1044 for state approval of subcontracts and printed material. Shands, 208 F.3d at 1311 n. 2. However, the DMS retained final decision-making authority concerning the existence of coverage or benefits under the health plan. Id. at 1310; Fla. Stat. Ann. § 110.123(5)(c).
The Court then considered the test it had previously set out. In so doing, it stated as follows: 1) the "pertinent inquiry" is the company's "function or role in a particular context;" 2) the question is "whether and to what extent these corporations are contractually acting as representatives of the State;" 3) the companies are protected when they "are clearly acting as agents of the state;" and 4) the "dispositive question for Eleventh Amendment purposes is whether a judgment against [the contractors] would implicate the state treasury or interfere with the administration of the state group insurance program. . . ." 208 F.3d at 1311. The Court did note that it "found no case directly on point that has accorded Eleventh Amendment immunity to a private corporation such as [these contractors]. . . ." Id.
In looking at Florida law and the implementing contracts, the Court in Shands concluded that the contractors were simply administrators acting at the behest of the State with reference to the health insurance program. Although the contractors made initial benefits decisions, the retention of final decision-making authority as to benefits determinations by DMS meant that the contractors were agents of DMS. Id. at 1312. In addition, the Court concluded that a judgment against the contractors with regard to disputes over benefits would affect the state treasury, as "the state insurance fund would be obliged to increase payments on the number of covered services." Id.

B. ACCS
In the present case, the statutory language and the language of the contract between ACCS and the SAO both specifically state that ACCS is an independent contractor, not an agent. The district court, however, relying upon Shands, concluded that ACCS was, in fact, acting as an agent of the SAO in sending the letters that form the basis of the claims. The district court also rested its ruling upon the contract provisions that describe ACCS's work in the daily management of all clerical and accounting functions related to the bad check program, and the SAO's responsibility to assist and direct ACCS with planning and development of polices, procedures, and other matters.
The deposition evidence from the SAO liaison to ACCS, Janet Diebler, the Executive Director of the SAO, Daniel Pearlman, and the present supervisor of county court prosecutors, Assistant State Attorney Gary O'Nolan, reveals that clerical review only is done by the SAO before the file goes to ACCS, and attorney review is performed after the bad check is returned if diversion is not completed. Although the allegedly unlawful form collection letters are sent after review and approval by the SAO, with content partially specified by Fla. Stat. § 832.08(3), there is no supervision by the SAO during ACCS's collection efforts of communications regarding the bad check amount and related fees. These communications are the subject of this action under the FDCPA.
Defendants/Appellees assert that as in Shands, they are merely administrators of the SAO's bad check program. However, ACCS fails to meet each element of the Shands test. First, in this case, state law and the contract define ACCS as an independent contractor, and not an agent. Florida statutes make a distinction between "independent contractor" and *1045 "agent." Compare Fla. Stat. § 30.24(2)(b) with Fla. Stat. § 766.1115. Thus, if the Legislature intended operators of bad check diversion programs to be considered "agents," it could have so stated in its statutory scheme and called the operators "agents," instead of "independent contractors," as it instead chose to do. Indeed, to the contrary, the specific language in the contract prohibits ACCS from acting as an agent of the SAO.[3]
Recently, this Court concluded in the related context of a military contractor that status as a common law agent is necessary but not sufficient to obtain derivative immunity under the government's Feres doctrine immunity. McMahon v. Presidential Airways, Inc., 502 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir.2007) (U.S. Supreme Court Feres doctrine precludes government liability for service-related injuries to soldiers). Although the constitutional underpinnings of Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence are distinct from the history of Feres doctrine case law, the McMahon opinion's discussion of derivative immunity and agency bears mention in the context of the present case. Here, ACCS cannot show that it is a common law agent because of the contractual and statutory language governing the bad check program.
As to the element of control over ACCS, we note that the SAO does have some control over the content of the letters, as long as ACCS uses the previously approved form letters. However, the SAO exercises no other control over the day-to-day activities of ACCS with regard to the collection efforts under the Program. As to the ability to end ACCS's services, because the contract requires "cause" for termination prior to the completion of repeating three-year terms, such control is limited. Hinson v. Edmond, 192 F.3d 1342, 1346-47 (11th Cir.1999) (concluding that prison health care director employed by contractor not eligible for qualified immunity for § 1983 claim where County could not hire or fire contractor employees).[4]
As to the third Shands element of state funding and liability, ACCS does not receive any funding from the State of Florida. Defendant argues that because ACCS is compensated from revenues of the Program, and part of those revenues would belong to the SAO, that ACCS is a state-funded entity. At oral argument and in its Supplemental Letter Authority, ACCS asserts that because all funds paid by Program participants are made payable to the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Plaintiffs are essentially seeking a disgorgement of these funds, part of which would be paid to the SAO. However, the depositions of the SAO employees, including the Executive Director who acts as a chief financial officer, as well as ACCS's Supplemental Letter Authority, confirm that the bank account set up to receive payments under the Program is controlled by ACCS, which acts as a fiduciary in disbursing funds by checks signed by ACCS's President to victims, the SAO, and itself. The record does not reflect that the collected funds, as they sit in that account, are state property.
Even if part of those funds were considered state property, it is undisputed that ACCS is not paid by state revenues. The Supreme Court has stated that the proper *1046 focus is not on the use of profits, but rather whether the State is obligated to bear and pay any resulting indebtedness if the program's expenditures exceed its receipts. Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30, 51, n. 21, 115 S.Ct. 394, 406, 130 L.Ed.2d 245 (1994) (rejecting immunity over "an agency that consumes no state revenues but contributes to the State's wealth"). In this case, the clear terms of the contract indicate that no indebtedness could ever occur  ACCS is paid only when it successfully collects on a bad check.
Moreover, as Shands and other Eleventh Circuit cases have noted, the most important factor in determining immunity is who is responsible for judgments against the entity. Manders v. Lee, 338 F.3d 1304, 1325 (11th Cir.2003) (en banc). The ACCS contract specifically indemnifies the SAO, except for "sole negligence" of SAO employees. Defendants speculate that there could be circumstances under this provision in which they are not required to indemnify the SAO, in which case the State of Florida would be responsible for a judgment. However, in this action the only claims asserted are against ACCS and its principals for the content of its communications with bad check writers. Though the SAO approved the communications in form, the actions allegedly in violation of the law cannot be due to the "sole negligence" of the SAO, a non-party to this litigation. Thus, a money judgment in this case against ACCS would not impose any liability upon the SAO. United States ex rel. Barron v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 381 F.3d 438, 440, n. 7 (5th Cir.2004) (immunity rejected for contractor who processed claims and distributed Medicaid funds for the State of Texas based on indemnity language of contract).
A related consideration to financial liability is legal liability. Regents of the University of California v. Doe, 519 U.S. 425, 430-31, 117 S.Ct. 900, 137 L.Ed.2d 55 (1997). If a state agency is legally liable for a judgment but indemnified by a non-state entity, then Eleventh Amendment immunity would still apply. However, in this case, the SAO is not being sued. It cannot have legal liability in this action.
Defendant also argues that under Shands, an alternative finding of interference with the administration of government programs leads to Eleventh Amendment immunity. Shands, 208 F.3d at 1311, citing Pennhurst State School & Hosp. v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89, 101, n. 11, 104 S.Ct. 900, 908, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984). However, neither decision elaborates on the standards to evaluate what extent of "interference" triggers Eleventh Amendment immunity. ACCS asserts that forcing it to change its SAO-approved letters would interfere with the SAO Program. Plaintiffs assert that ACCS can comply with both the contract and the FDCPA even if the language of the letters were changed.
In Shands, the Court concluded that issuing a declaratory judgment interpreting the State's obligations regarding "covered services" under the state health plan in favor of Shands Hospital would "impermissibly intrude" upon future administration of the state program because payments from state funds would increase. In the present case, a finding that ACCS is covered by the FDCPA would not affect state funds, as previously explained above.
This action does not impede the SAO's prosecutorial decisions regarding bad check writers  rather, it is the conduct of ACCS and the content of the communications sent to Plaintiffs that are alleged to violate federal law. The existence of the bad check diversion program is also not challenged. If imposition of FDCPA requirements over ACCS interferes with the *1047 independent contractor's ability to successfully collect on bad checks, then ACCS can make a business decision not to continue with the contract. The SAO in turn can run the program in-house, as it did prior to contracting with ACCS. The standard for Eleventh Amendment immunity has never been held to apply simply because an independent contractor performs some government function. Rather, under the factors described above, in this action ACCS is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.

V. CONCLUSION
ACCS is a private, for-profit corporation acting as an independent contractor to run a bad check diversion program for the SAO. Pursuant to Florida law, the ACCS contract, the actual operation of the bad check program, and Eleventh Circuit precedent, ACCS is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.[5]
The district court's order granting summary judgment to ACCS on the grounds of Eleventh Amendment immunity is REVERSED. The matter is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
NOTES
[*]  Honorable James I. Cohn, United States District Judge for the Southern District of Florida, sitting by designation.
[1]  For purposes of this opinion, the Court refers collectively to ACCS and the various ACCS officers as "ACCS."
[2]  ACCS sometimes receives bad checks directly from merchants. ACCS hires a local customer relations representative, selected by the SAO from a list of finalists provided by ACCS, to market the Program to local merchants. This marketing has increased the number of bad checks in the Program. According to the SAO's liaison to ACCS, part of the marketing pitch to merchants is that the Program provides local merchants with a better financial result than other collection companies can offer. Janeen Diebler Deposition, R. 167 at p. 116-17; Exhibit 30 (section describing monthly activities of customer relations representative).
[3]  Florida case law also supports the concept that parties cannot later change the legal status of their relationship from the contract language. Anthony Distributors, Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 882 F.Supp. 1024, 1031 (M.D.Fla. 1995).
[4]  The Hinson opinion relied upon Richardson v. McKnight, 521 U.S. 399, 117 S.Ct. 2100, 138 L.Ed.2d 540 (1997), which rejected qualified immunity for prison guards employed by a private contractor.
[5]  The Court need not address Plaintiffs' Ex Parte Young argument concerning the exception to Eleventh Amendment immunity for prospective declaratory and/or injunctive relief, and ACCS's responsive argument that Congress amended the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692p, to recognize the existence of these bad check diversion programs by setting out a test for such a program to be considered exempt from the FDCPA.


360 S.W.3d 805 (2011)
Anna GRANT, Appellant,
v.
DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Respondent.
No. ED 96309.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
December 13, 2011.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied January 23, 2012.
Application for Transfer Denied April 3, 2012.
Robert S. Adler, St. Louis, MO, for appellant.
Chris Koster, Atty. Gen., Samuel E. Buffaloe, Jefferson City, MO, for respondent.
Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., ROY L. RICHTER, J., and GARY M. GAERTNER, JR., J.

ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Anna Grant appeals from the circuit court's judgment sustaining an order of the Director of Revenue revoking Grant's driving privileges.
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find no error of law. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).