MEMORANDUM

Stacey J. Hawkins (“Plaintiff’) filed an action against Robert N. Kilberg, P.A., a Maryland law firm (“Kilberg” or “Defendant”),1 seeking damages for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 et seq.; the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (“MCDCA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 14-201 et seq.-, and the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Md. Code Ann., Com. Law §§ 13-101 et seq.

Now pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III (the MCPA count) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 16.) The issues have been briefed (ECF Nos. 16-1, 18 & 19), and no hearing is required, Local Rule 105.6 (D. *388Md. 2014). For the reasons explained below, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss will be GRANTED.

1. Background2

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant, a purported debt collector within the meaning of the FDCPA3 and the MCDCA,4 has engaged in “illegal efforts to collect a consumer debt” arising from an apartment lease agreement on which she apparently defaulted. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶2, 22.) On January 13, 2015, Defendant filed a debt-collection lawsuit against Plaintiff on behalf of Regional Management, Inc. (“RMI”), Plaintiffs former landlord, in the District Court for Baltimore City. (ECF No. 16-2 at l.)5 That court granted judgment to RMI on May 14, 2015. {Id. at 3.) During this same period, Plaintiff alleges that “Byron,” an employee of Defendant’s, began calling her at her workplace and leaving messages about the subject debt with her coworkers. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 24.) Plaintiff adds that Defendant retained the services of former codefendants Bond’s Sure Serve, Inc. (“BSSI”), and Edwin F. Cihíar (an employee of BSSI), and that Cihlar also improperly phoned Plaintiffs workplace. (Id. ¶ 26.)

Plaintiff filed a three-count action on October 19, 2015, claiming that Defendant violated certain provisions of the FDCPA (Count I) and the MCDCA (Count II) and that, by violating the MCDCA, Defendant further committed an unfair/deceptive trade practice pursuant to the MCPA (Count III). On December 1, 2015, Defendant filed the pending Motion to Dismiss Count III. (ECF No. 16.) Plaintiff filed a response in opposition (ECF No. 18), and Defendant replied (ECF No. 19). Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is now ripe for decision.

II. Standard of Review6

A complaint must contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to *389‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). In analyzing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court views all well-pleaded allegations in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Ibarra v. United States, 120 F.3d 472, 474 (4th Cir. 1997). “[A] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable[.]” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955. Even so, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Id. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. “A pleading that offers ‘labels and conclusions’ or ‘a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.’ Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ ” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (alteration in original) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 557, 127 S.Ct. 1955).

III. Analysis

The MCDCA generally prohibits debt collectors from disclosing “to a person other than the debtor or his spouse” information that “affects the debtor’s reputation. . .with knowledge that the other person does not have a legitimate business need for the information.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 14-202(5). Any disclosure in contravention of this provision may expose the debt collector to civil liability. Com'. Law § 14-203. Moreover, a violation of the MCDCA is a per se violation of the MCPA. See Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-301 (“Unfair or deceptive trade practices include any.. .[violation of a provision of.. .the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act[.]”). Plaintiff avers that Defendant violated the MCDCA through its phone calls to her place of employment; accordingly, Plaintiff believes that Defendant violated the MCPA.

In its pending Motion, Defendant does not seek dismissal of Plaintiff’s MCDCA claim (or, for that matter, her analogous FDCPA claim). Defendant does, however, seek dismissal of Plaintiffs MCPA claim (Count III) pursuant to an exemption provision in the statute, Com. Law § 13-104(1). That provision states that the MCPA does not apply to the “professional services” of certain enumerated practitioners, including lawyers. Defendant is a law firm ostensibly engaged in professional debt-collection services (including litigation) on behalf of its client, RMI. Thus, the exemption provision would seem to shield Defendant from liability under the MCPA.

Eager to preserve her MCPA claim with its fee-shifting potential,7 Plaintiff argues that since lawyers who engage in unlawful debt-collection activities can be held liable under the MCDCA, “it follows *390that the legislature also intended that they would... be liable for the attorneys [sic] fees added on to the MCDCA damages by operation of the MCPA when the basis of liability is the violation of the MCDCA.” (EGF No. 18 at 6-7.) Thus, Plaintiff reasons, “the two statutes can best be harmonized by limiting the MCPA’s attorney exemption to MCPA violations that are not based solely on a MCDCA violation.” (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff adds that the MCPA by its terms requires liberal construction and application, Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-105, and she cites May v. Warwick, 227 Md. 77, 175 A.2d 413, 415-16 (1961), for the proposition that “in construing legislative enactments, all statutes relating to the same subject matter are to be considered and harmonized as far as possible.”

But the May citation reveals the fatal defect in Plaintiffs argument: statutes relating to the same subject matter are harmonized as far as possible. The Court has no authority to override an explicit exemption built into the MCPA so as to more neatly integrate that statute with another law. Indeed, were the Court to adopt Plaintiffs position, it would violate a more fundamental precept of statutory construction: “unless there is some ambiguity in the language of a statute, a court’s analysis must end with the statute’s plain language.” Hillman v. I.R.S., 263 F.3d 338, 342 (4th Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Murphy, 35 F.3d 143, 145 (4th Cir. 1994) (“Courts are not free to read into the language what is not there, but rather should apply the statute as written.”). The Court cannot and need not speculate as to why the General Assembly of Maryland saw fit to expose lawyers to liability for actual damages under the MCDCA without also making them liable for attorney’s fees under the MCPA — but the latter statute plainly “does not apply” to the “professional services of a ... lawyer.” Md. Code Ann., Com. Law § 13-104(1).

A wealth of case law reinforces the Court’s interpretation of the statute.8 See, e.g., Lembach v. Bierman, 528 Fed.Appx. 297, 304 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“Attorneys are clearly not within the scope of the Act[.]”); Combs v. Bank of Am., N.A., Civ. No. GJH-14-3372, 2015 WL 5008754, at *7 (D.Md. Aug. 20, 2015) (“Plaintiff fails to state a claim against [defendant law firm] under the MCPA because lawyers, acting in their professional capacity, are exempt from the MCPA.”); Murray v. Bierman, Geesing, Ward & Wood, LLC, No. RWT 11cv1623, 2012 WL 4480679, at *4 (D.Md. Sept. 27, 2012) (“[T]he MCPA simply does not apply to lawyers carrying out their professional services.”); see also Puf-finberger v. Commercion, LLC, Civ. No. SAG-13-1237, 2014 WL 120596, at *9 (D.Md. Jan. 10, 2014) (rejecting plaintiffs theory that the exemption does not apply to a law firm engaged in debt-collection activities). For that matter, courts in this District have construed the exemption broadly, holding that covered professionals may be exempt from MCPA liability “even when they are not acting in their specific professional capacity.” Pruitt v. Alba Law Grp., P.A., Civ. No. DEC 15-0458, 2015 WL 5032014, at *10 (D.Md. Aug. 24, 2015); accord Butler v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Civ. No. MJG-12-2705, 2013 WL 145886, at *3 (D.Md. Jan. 11, 2013); Stewart v. Bierman, 859 F.Supp.2d 754, 768 (D.Md. *3912012), aff'd sub nom. Lembach, 528 Fed. Appx. 297.9

Plaintiffs remaining arguments do not revive her MCPA claim. She devotes almost a full page of her memorandum to a discussion of the legislative history of the FDCPA and Congress’s decision, in 1986, to eliminate the attorney exemption under that statute. (ECF No. 18 at 7-8.) Of course, the legislative history of a federal statute has no bearing on the correct interpretation of an unrelated Maryland law. Plaintiff also frets that exempting attorney debt collectors from MCPA liability might “create a potential loophole in the MCDCA’s enforcement mechanism which could potentially result in an increase in unscrupulous debt collection conduct by law firms.” (IcL at 8.) Given that the exemption provision has been in place since 1974, and given that this Court is hardly the first to affirm that lawyers — including those specializing in debt collection, see Puffinberger, 2014 WL 120596, at *9 — are shielded from MCPA liability, Plaintiffs fears seem greatly exaggerated. In any event, if Plaintiff believes that the policy goals underlying the MCDCA could be better effectuated through broader application of the MCPA’s fee-shifting provision, nothing prevents her from raising that concern with her local legislator. But it is simply not the province of a federal court to intervene on matters of state statutory law where the state’s lawmaking body has chosen not to do so.

Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Count III with prejudice, and this case will proceed to discovery on Counts I and II.

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, an Order shall enter GRANTING Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Count III (ECF No. 16).'