.jpg)
Fwd: [BK] Bankr D Idaho on Appearance Counsel and Fees (341 coverage)
Good timing Holly!
The issue of many (or most) districts requiring the petition signing attorney to appear at the 341a hearing was discussed at the cdcbaa Ethics MCLE program yesterday, in the context of CDCA's limited scope of appearance.
Judge Tighe explained CDCA's rationale for implementing the limited scope of appearance and allowing appearance attorneys at the 341a hearings (etc.) was the desire to hold down the cost of legal services to debtors and therefore the percentage of pro se debtor cases.
Too bad there isn't a teleconferencing option to eliminate the need for so much driving time.
Best regards,
Peter
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
> On Jun 18, 2016, at 10:59 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I hope CDCA does not adopt the same strict rules about appearance counsel as we have here in Idaho. (See attached decision.) I would love to file all over the state of Idaho, but I have to personally make the trek to the 341s, wherever filed. I'm going to be filing a chapter 7 case in Northern Idaho soon and I will be driving the 7 hours for the 341. I'm just going to bring my dog and make a vacation out of the trip.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Friday, June 17, 2016
> Subject: [BK] Bankr D Idaho on Appearance Counsel and Fees (341 coverage)
> To: BK@mail.nacba.org
>
>
>
> Bobby Wilbert uploaded a file in the group: Bankruptcy and Consumer Case Law Updates and Alt-Country Videos.
>
> Just now
> FAQ: APPEARANCE COUNSEL AND FEES
>
> Bankr D Idaho: The term "appearance counsel" was used in connection with Bratton and Sperry's role. Counsel's Rule 2016(b) disclosures indicate these other attorneys, for a "flat fee," agreed to "appear[ ] at debtor's 341(a) hearing on my behalf." #AppearanceCounsel
>
> Despite Counsel's characterization, Bratton and Sperry were not simply agreeing to appear on Counsel's behalf. They were appearing, as counsel, for Ms. Olson. And they were not just "appearing"they were representing her at a 341(a) hearing as her attorney. Thus, a more apt phraseology than "appearance" counsel might be "substitute" or "associated" counsel. Even though this arrangement may be for a limited purpose or duration, the second attorney is, for that time and purpose, the attorney who is representing the client.
>
> A. Code, Rule and ethical violations
>
> 1. Section 329 and Rule 2016(b)
>
> Under 329(a), any attorney representing a debtor in or in connection with a case shall file a statement of the compensation paid or agreed to be paid for the services rendered or to be rendered by that attorney and the source of the compensation. This provision is implemented by Rule 2016(b), which provides:
>
> Every attorney for a debtor, whether or not the attorney applies for compensation, shall file and transmit to the United States trustee within 14 days after the order for relief, or at another time as the court may direct, the statement required by 329 of the Code, including whether the attorney has shared or agreed to share the compensation with any other entity. The statement shall include the particulars of any such sharing or agreement to share by the attorney, but the details of any agreement for the sharing of the compensation with a member or regular associate of the attorney's law firm shall not be required. A supplemental statement shall be filed and transmitted to the United States trustee within 14 days after any payment or agreement not previously disclosed.
>
> Sperry was contacted, certainly by January 6 when Counsel telephoned him, if not earlier. He agreed to appear at Ms. Olson's January 7 meeting. He was obligated to file a Rule 2016(b) disclosure within 14 days of that agreement. He did not. Indeed, despite the colloquy about Rule 2016(b) disclosures at the May 10 hearing, it took him almost two more weeks to file the required disclosure.
>
> In addition, Counsel reached an "appearance" and fee sharing agreement with Sperry by January 6, and Counsel was thus required by the Rule to disclose it within 14 days thereafter.15 Counsel did not file a Rule 2016(b) disclosure of this agreement until May 3, after the Court had issued its Notice of Hearing and Order.16
>
> Thus Counsel and Sperry have each violated 329(a) and Rule 2016(b)
The post was migrated from Yahoo.