Consumer Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy Judge Paul Black denied a motion to compel arbitration but didn’t decide whether he would certify a class.

Navigating the Intersection of §§ 507 and 523: Understanding the Priority and Dischargeability of Governmental Debts By Trish D. Lazich and Kristin Radwanick Bankruptcy is a complex legal landscape. The Bankruptcy Code is particularly complex with respect to the

The Ninth Circuit BAP rebelled against the Supreme Court’s departure from the statute in Kelly v. Robinson on dischargeability under Section 523(a)(7).

With the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) came numerous amendments to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.  Of great significance was the inclusion of a calculation of monthly income required for individual consumer debtors to determine their eligibility for relief under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, commonly referred to as the “means test,” and provided for in 11 U.S.C. § 707(b)(2)(A) and (B). The failure of an attorney to accurately disclose a client’s monthly income and expenses on the means test can have devastating consequences on the debtor and may result in potentially sanctionable actions against the attorney pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code and the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Getting paid in a consumer bankruptcy practice can feel like nighttime in Westeros: dark and full of terrors. [1]

Debtors typically see bankruptcy as a last resort and often don’t contact an attorney until they are out of time and money, usually while facing existential issues with strict timelines. Depending on your jurisdiction, stopping certain actions can be all but impossible without filing for bankruptcy. Yet, the retention and compensation of a bankruptcy attorney is subject to serious complexities. Often, the choice of chapter is made by what the client can afford to do now, not what’s best.