Ethics

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.

Benchnotes By Aaron M. Kaufman, Bradley D. Pack and Christina Sanfelippo Court Affirms “Enhanced” 37-Month Sentence for Attorney’s Concealment of Brother’s Money The appeal in United States v. Kowalksi concerned the propriety of a 37-month sentence for an attorney who

A lender was filing baseless dischargeability complaints believing that the impecunious debtors would default or settle.

Sitting en banc, three judges in St. Louis effectively barred bifurcated fee arrangements in the Eastern District of Missouri.

The unanimous decision on March 19 by Justice Gorsuch contains language that could be used on both sides of the argument about the validity of equitable mootness.

Benchnotes By Aaron M. Kaufman, Bradley D. Pack and Christina Sanfelippo Preference Claims Under § 547 Are Estate Property and May Be Sold Joining the Eighth and Ninth Circuits, 1 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that claims for the avoidance of

Absent a provision in the plan to the contrary, creditors aren’t given estate assets recovered after the final plan payment.

A vulgarity directed at the debtor wasn’t a stay violation absent an act designed to collect a debt.