Posts Tagged ‘Petition Preparers and Fees’

The Peculiar Parallel of Debt Relief Agencies and Madonna

In yesterday’s blog, I suggested that some attorneys – namely on Craigslist – were not complying with the BAPCPA imposed requirement that they disclose that they are a “debt relief agency.”  That might not have been completely fair.

Certainly, when an attorney fits into the definition of a “debt relief agency”, they must disclose that fact and are obligated to comply with additional disclosure requirements.  But, if an attorney does not fit into the definition of a “debt relief agency”, may they still represent individuals in consumer bankruptcy matters?  The answer is yes… and that raises some interesting questions.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

CareOne: What’s Behind Those Commercials?

As I was watching the news the other night, I saw this commercial for CareOne Credit. The name rang in my head – and then it hit me:  I had recently read about them in a case while doing some research  Since the judge’s observations in that case and his comments were stuck in my head – and since I am seeing these commercials more and more -  I thought I would share them here.

The Case

In late 2006, Debra Wood was struggling with debt – and after apparently seeing an ad, she contacted CareOne Credit Counseling.  When she contacted CareOne, she was referred to Consumer Law Associates, LLC (CLA).  CLA then gave her documents to start her into a debt management plan – which would be administered by Ruther and Associates, LLC (RA).  They describe themselves as a “national law firm dedicated to consumer debt reduction.”  As the facts of this case unfold, you’ll see what that description is inaccurate – at best.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Filing Bankruptcy Without an Attorney

According to a New York Times article, more and more people are representing themselves in court.  I have had much experience counseling debtors who have initially elected to seek bankruptcy protection without the benefit of counsel.  There are many reasons for this: the lack of money to hire an attorney being one of them, if not the biggest.  Another, and perhaps more troubling reason is that pro see filers have a belief that a judge will help them through the process.

From the article:

Judges complain that people miss deadlines, fail to bring the right documents or evidence and are simply unprepared for legal proceedings. Such mistakes make it more likely they will fare poorly – no matter the merit of their cases.

This applies in any courtroom, and in any legal proceeding.  If you want to represent yourself, you have to be prepared.  That means, you have to know what the legal issues are (not what you think the legal issues are or should be) and have your ducks and documents all lined up.  It also helps if you know the law.

But relying on the judge to help your is tantamount to ignoring that the role of the judge actually is.  As the Times discusses:

Overseeing a proceeding where one or both sides lack lawyers puts a judge in a difficult position: The judge is supposed to be neutral but also has an interest in moving things along.

“If you see a person making a terrible mistake, you can’t always jump in and save them,” said Judge Borbely, the circuit court judge in Vermilion County, Ill. “You cannot take the role of an advocate.”

To ensure fair outcomes, courts must do more to help people navigate the courts, said John T. Broderick, the chief justice of New Hampshire. “If you and I went to the hospital and they said, ‘Do you have insurance?’ and we don’t, and they said, ‘There are some textbooks over there with some really good illustrations,’ ” Judge Broderick said, “we would think that was immoral.”

At the same time however, while courts can and do offer navigation assistance (such as the Pro Se Clerk at the US Bankruptcy Court), they cannot offer legal advice and the judges cannot be your advocate.

(more…)

  • Share/Bookmark

Why Bankruptcy Lawyers Require Fees Before Filing

There really is a good reason. And to help prove my point, I turn to an October 2008 decision out of the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: In re Mansfield. In that case, the court was called upon to ask what it viewed as a “deceptively simple question:” may an attorney who charges a “flat fee” for services pursue the uncollected balance due?

In this case, the attorney charged a flat fee for preparing the necessary documents and schedules, but also for attending the first meeting of creditors (which occurs after the case is filed). The fee was paid in one large installment, with the remaining balance divided into smaller installments which were paid or due after the case was filed.

The US Trustee sought a review of the fee practice as well as disgorgement of the fees collected after the case was collected. The attorney claimed there was no authority supporting the relief sought by the US Trustee, and he was entitled to collect at least the value of the services he rendered.

The court did not agree. Under Section 727(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, a “debtor’s obligation under a fee agreement to pay a fixed or flat fee to his attorney for legal services rendered pre- and postpetition in a Chapter 7 case, regardless of how the fee is scheduled to be paid, is a prepetition debt that is dischargeable. The attorney avoided having to return the fees paid because there is a difference of opinion among Bankruptcy Courts throughout the country as to whether the practice of collecting fees post-petition is permissible….and if permissible, the circumstances they are permissible.

In flat fee cases (and it is fair to say most, if not all consumer Chapter 7 cases are flat fee), the court found that the “division of a flat fee arrangement into prepetition and postpetition parts to be conceptually inconsistent and therefore untenable. The Court therefore joins those other courts which hold what when a flat or fixed prepetition agreement is at issue, the fee must be paid in full prior to the commencement of the debtor’s case or the fee is discharged under Section 727(b).”

So in reality, when an attorney requires fees and costs prior to the filing of the petition, it’s because they need to get paid…unlike creditors in a Chapter 7 who in many cases do not get paid at all. There’s case law all over the country that supports it, and other case law that suggests that it can be done. While the current code and the case law leave room for creative argument, debtor’s attorneys can be expected to be wise and take the path of least resistance: earn the fee and serve the client. Certainly, there are bigger battles for debtor’s attorneys to engage in for their clients other than fighting for a fee for postpetition services.

In re Mansfield, US Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 08-11648 SR (Ocobter 2, 2008)

  • Share/Bookmark