Recently, I attended a seminar that covered a variety of topics related to bankruptcy law. During one of the non-consumer related presentations, a word was used to refer to a debtor. Not any particular debtor, but rather in terms of a description or hypothetical. While technically it was a business presentation, and arguably, the word as it was used (rather repeatedly) does not necessarily imply some personification of the word, it’s difficult for me to hear the word and not think that it refers to a person. I write about this word because as a bankruptcy lawyer, I found the word offensive. The word is deadbeat.
I expect people who do not understand bankruptcy or who have little sympathy for those who are experiencing financial difficulties to have some level of disdain for those who are experiencing it. In many cases, those are the type of people who work as collection agents – the ones who act like it’s their money that’s owed which is why they may treat consumers with little to no respect. They are also the ones who are very quick to point out that someone has not lived up to their end of an agreement…as if Western Civilization would collapse because of it. The use the term ‘deadbeat’ because it is judgmental, and it is offensive. But I expect a bit more from a bankruptcy attorney, regardless of whether their focus is consumer or commercial matters.
While representing consumers, it is common for me to be in court with attorneys representing lenders and other creditors. At no time have any of my colleagues who I see very regularly and most of whom I have tremendous respect for – said to me “why isn’t your deadbeat paying the mortgage?” or “why do you represent deadbeats?” Admittedly, some have said “why do you practice on the dark side?” which then leads me to respond with “I’m not, you are on the dark side…come to the light!” Then it turns into a volleying “no, you are!” discussion that inevitably leads to laughter. But I digress.
Had my colleagues used that word, I likely would have reacted in such a manner that most reasonable minds would conclude was counter productive. Perhaps even intemperate. But they do not because like me, I think many of my colleagues understand that for some people, life happens. Sometimes regrettable decisions are made by debtors. Sometimes decisions are made by others that debtors end up regretting. Sometimes it just is what it is. And we do what we do because we are compelled to help them through a difficult time.
Again, while I appreciate that some people with a certain amount of ignorance (or perhaps blindness) don’t share the same level of understanding I have with people struggling with debt, that is not to say I find the use of the term appropriate, especially when used by a bankruptcy attorney who should know better. To those attorneys, and to those readers who wonder where my head is on this subject, I say this: we accomplish nothing by sitting in judgment of people facing the prospect of seeking bankruptcy protection, and certainly there but for the grace of God, none of us have the right to.
After all, we can only plan and hope. No one really knows what tomorrow will bring. And those who did not plan well, or perhaps had far too high hopes don’t deserve being referred to as a deadbeat. By anyone.
The Elephant in the Room: Married Same-Sex Debtors
The decision to seek bankruptcy protection is never easy, and when two people are involved, it is not necessarily easier. Married opposite-sex debtors have the option of seeking bankruptcy protection jointly in one case. But as a growing handful of states recognize same-sex marriages or its legal equivalent (“unions”), and as the legitimacy and constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) continues to be litigated in courts across the country, same-sex debtors seeking bankruptcy relief face even tougher decisions.
(more…)
Tags: Commentary - Legal, Consumer Rights, Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Joint Debtors
Posted in Bankruptcy, Chapter 11, Chapter 13, Chapter 7, Consumer Rights | No Comments »