.jpg)
Failed Means Test with NO DPI
Establishing the scope of representation in your Retainer Agreement is very important. The more cases you handle the wiser you become regarding how best to structure your Retainer Agreements.
Discussion on this listserve regarding how much to charge consumers for services might be considered price fixing so it is discourage.
An excerpt from FTC.gov
Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms. Generally, the antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor. When consumers make choices about what products and services to buy, they expect that the price has been determined freely on the basis of supply and demand, not by an agreement among competitors. When competitors agree to restrict competition, the result is often higher prices. Accordingly, price fixing is a major concern of government antitrust enforcement.
A plain agreement among competitors to fix prices is almost always illegal, whether prices are fixed at a minimum, maximum, or within some range. Illegal price fixing occurs whenever two or more competitors agree to take actions that have the effect of raising, lowering or stabilizing the price of any product or service without any legitimate justification. Price-fixing schemes are often worked out in secret and can be hard to uncover, but an agreement can be discovered from "circumstantial" evidence. For example, if direct competitors have a pattern of unexplained identical contract terms or price behavior together with other factors (such as the lack of legitimate business explanation), unlawful price fixing may be the reason. Invitations to coordinate prices also can raise concerns, as when one competitor announces publicly that it is willing to end a price war if its rival is willing to do the same, and the terms are so specific that competitors may view this as an offer to set prices jointly.
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
> On Aug 11, 2016, at 6:26 PM, 'Jennifer L. Jones' jdgrad03@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Is that common to charge more if your case gets flagged by the UST? A current case I have was converted to a 13 but now they can't afford the $800 payment plan so I have to dismiss it. Should I be charging more for all of this extra work? I just considered it a part of the process and something I perhaps should've seen coming?
>
> The Law Office of Jennifer L. Jones
> 1243 S. La Cienega Blvd, Ste 8
> Los Angeles, CA 90035
> Tel: (619) 913-9818
>
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain or disseminate this message or any attachment. If you have received this message in error, please call the sender immediately at (619) 913-9818 and delete all copies of the message and any attachments. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission or delivery shall constitute waiver of any applicable legal privilege.
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Failed Means Test with NO DPI
>
>
> I put a deduction on line 43 "special circumstances" for the amount of income reduction the debtor will experience in the immediate future. Helpful with high overtime debtors who are going to see a cutback in OT and make sure I/J reflect the new circumstances. Typically, the UST will file the Notice of Presumption of Abuse, then you have to talk them out of filing the motion to dismiss or convert - with evidence. Charge more!
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Charging more is easy. It's collecting that's tough.
On 8/11/2016 6:20 PM, sam@southbaybk.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I put a deduction on line 43 "special circumstances" for the
> amount of income reduction the debtor will experience in the
> immediate future. Helpful with high overtime debtors who are
> going to see a cutback in OT and make sure I/J reflect the new
> circumstances. Typically, the UST will file the Notice of
> Presumption of Abuse, then you have to talk them out of filing the
> motion to dismiss or convert - with evidence. Charge more!
>
>
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Reply-To: "Jennifer L. Jones"
X-Original-Return-Path: "Jennifer L. Jones"
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Is that common to charge more if your case gets flagged by the UST? A current case I have was converted to a 13 but now they can't afford the $800 payment plan so I have to dismiss it. Should I be charging more for all of this extra work? I just considered it a part of the process and something I perhaps should've seen coming?The Law Office of Jennifer L. Jones1243 S. La Cienega Blvd, Ste 8Los Angeles, CA 90035Tel: (619) 913-9818
information that is privileged, confidential and/or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain or disseminate this message or any attachment. If you have received this message in error, please call the sender immediately at (619) 913-9818 and delete all copies of the message and any attachments. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission or delivery shall constitute waiver of any applicable legal privilege.
hbaybk.com [cdcbaa]"
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Failed Means Test with NO DPI
mstances" for the amount of income reduction the debtor will experience in the immediate future. Helpful with high overtime debtors who are going to see a cutback in OT and make sure I/J reflect the new circumstances. Abuse, then you have to talk them out of filing the motion to dismiss or c
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
X-Original-Return-Path: "Jennifer L. Jones"
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
Is that common to charge more if your case gets flagged by the UST? A current case I have was converted to a 13 but now they can't afford the $800 payment plan so I have to dismiss it. Should I be charging more for all of this extra work? I just considered it a part of the process and something I perhaps should've seen coming?The Law Office of Jennifer L. Jones1243 S. La Cienega Blvd, Ste 8Los Angeles, CA 90035Tel: (619) 913-9818
information that is privileged, confidential and/or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain or disseminate this message or any attachment. If you have received this message in error, please call the sender immediately at (619) 913-9818 and delete all copies of the message and any attachments. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission or delivery shall constitute waiver of any applicable legal privilege.
hbaybk.com [cdcbaa]"
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:20 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Failed Means Test with NO DPI
mstances" for the amount of income reduction the debtor will experience in the immediate future. Helpful with high overtime debtors who are going to see a cutback in OT and make sure I/J reflect the new circumstances. Abuse, then you have to talk them out of filing the motion to dismiss or c
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Christine,
This isn't an audit issue (audits are, allegedly, random). If the
presumption arises the OUST has a specific period of time to decide
whether to seek dismissal of the case.
Just file a Declaration attached to the Form 22-A which explains why
the means test figures are different. If the reason is loss of job,
explain how long that is likely to last (e.g. very difficult to be
employed in debtor's field, occupation is no longer viable,
etc.). I've filed cases without incident where the means test
raises the presumption of abuse due to retirement withdrawals in the
6 months. I just attach a Declaration explaining that it isn't
going to continue (usually because the debtor has exhausted the
funds anyway).--
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i)
avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii)
promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
On 8/11/2016 8:59 AM, 'Christine A. Kingston'
attorneychristine@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Colleagues,
>
> I am just checking to to see what the general consensus is on
> debtors who FAIL THE MEANS TEST, but are UNEMPLOYED WITH NO
> DISPOSABLE INCOME.
>
> Are these cases getting flagged? Must the debtors wait to pass
> means test?
>
> I'm just trying to avoid UST audit.
>
> Your thoughts and/or experiences of late?
>
> Thanks, Christine
> Christine A. Kingston, Esq.
> Law Office of Christine A. Kingston
> 5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
> Huntington Beach, CA 92649
> Office: 714-533-9210
> Fax: 714-489-8150
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
>
> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
>
> ************************************************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including
> attachments, is intended solely for review by the intended
> recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged
> information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or
> distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the
> intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any
> ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that
> may apply to this communication. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy
> all copies of the original message.
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax
> advice contained in this email message, including attachments, is
> not intended to and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose
> of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
> (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury
> Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Colleagues,
I am just checking to to see what the general consensus is on debtors who
FAIL THE MEANS TEST, but are UNEMPLOYED WITH NO DISPOSABLE INCOME.
Are these cases getting flagged? Must the debtors wait to pass means test?
I'm just trying to avoid UST audit.
Your thoughts and/or experiences of late?
Thanks, Christine
Christine A. Kingston, Esq.
Law Office of Christine A. Kingston
5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
Huntington Beach, CA 92649
Office: 714-533-9210
Fax: 714-489-8150
Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.