.jpg)
Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
I have never intentionally not taken all my fees upfront. The one time I
filed and then realized we had not been paid our full fee, I amended the
schedules to reflect that I was a creditor. I also advised the client that
their legal obligation to pay me would be discharged. They paid anyway. I
think the vast majority would, as Kenneth has pointed out.
Whenever clients tell me they don't want to list their friend, family member
or favorite doctor because they want to pay them back, I explain their
obligation to disclose and list all their debts. I then advise them that a
bankruptcy only discharges a legal obligation to pay; any moral obligation
they feel (or don't feel) they have is unaffected by the bankruptcy
discharge.
I do not believe that the practice of taking cases with partial payment
prior to filing is an nonwaiveable conflict. If the unpaid fees are listed
on F, the client knows they have no legal obligation to pay them and they
are not billed after filing, then there is no conflict. A nonwaiveable
conflict would arise if the attorney decided to s/he wanted to do something
to deny the debtors discharge (which would be some form of professional
suicide). From a practical point of view, the attorney wants that discharge
entered. Getting rid of the legal obligation to pay the other creditors
makes it more likely that the debtor can act on any moral obligation they
feel to pay the attorney. So the attorney and the client have the same
goal.
I have filed bankruptcies for clients that have receivables with my partner.
Once I know they are going to end up in bankruptcy court, I would rather get
that fee than let the rest of you add insult to my injury.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
This is an interesting thread; from what I'm getting, everyone realizes
that the collection of the pre-petition fee is verboten once the case is
filed. The issue of whether the lawyer is willing to take a flyer on his
or her client, however, is something else entirely.
I'm not opposed to giving clients the benefit of the doubt, but only if I
can consider the unpaid fees as gravy on top of profitability. That takes
us down an entirely different road.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
I help people with overdue bills, credit reporting problems, and debt
collection harassment. Questions? Just hit REPLY or check out my website
here: http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
NACBA Co-Chair, New York
Founder and Past President, Bankruptcy Law Network
NEW YORK OFFICE
350 Fifth Ave Ste 7210
New York NY 10118
T: 646.827.0758
COMING SOON TO THE LOS ANGELES AREA
Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by
email, you understand that it's not confidential.
This is an interesting thread; from what I'm getting, everyone realizes that the collection of the pre-petition fee is verboten once the case is filed. The issue of whether the lawyer is willing to take a flyer on his or her client, however, is something else entirely.
I'm not opposed to giving clients the benefit of the doubt, but only if I can consider the unpaid fees as gravy on top of profitability. That takes us down an entirely different road.
-------------
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I still don't see your point. If a client really feels that he has to beat me
out of a fee after I have performed the services, I won't be happy, but it is
not going to kill me. How many times does this happen? 4-5 times in 30+ years.
Look, many clients simply do not have the funds to pay even what we wouldconsider a modest fee in full. So you take a chance on some of them. So what?
Again, I'm going to do the same work, and at the same level of competencewhether I am ultimately paid or not.
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN
AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.
THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thu, August 16, 2012 6:34:41 AM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
Yes. I do agree that being owed by a client for past due fees and costs innonbankruptcy matters does not necessarily place you in an unwaivable conflict.
It may be challenging but not necessarily unethical. With a bankruptcy,
however, you are by definition adverse. In this instance you are trying to get
a discharge of the client's debts (including the one to you) yet you are
simultaneously not wanting to have the client unilaterally refuse to pay. Look
I am not suggesting that anybody in this group would look out for themselves to
the detriment of the client's discharge but the exsistence of the actual
conflict can not be overlooked simply because the amont of money owed is modest.
The reality is (this is clear from the comments) that the lawyers who do this
believe that the client should pay their fees yet the same lawyer would never
counsel their client to pay any other unsecured obligation after commencement of
a case or discharge. Perhaps if
you say to the client after you have performed all of the work, look you don't
have to pay me and I won't be in the slightest bit angry if you don't but the
value of my services was X so if you want to pay please do. S.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 1:12 AM PDT Kenneth Jay Schwartz wrote:
>Don't you do other types of law wherein you bill a client or receive payment
>after your services have been rendered? Does that put you in an "adverse">position vis--vis your client? You seem to forget that our ethical duties that
>accompanies representation overrides concerns about compensation. You are>supposed to perform at the same level of competence/expertise whether or not a
>relatively small amount that your client has agreed to pay postpetition is>actually paid or not.
> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
>LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
>21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
>Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
>Telephone: (818) 226-1205
>Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
>
>
>
>
>THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
>CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY
>BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
>CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN
>
>AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
>NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,>DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
>IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.
>THANK YOU.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wed, August 15, 2012 10:33:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
>
>
>
>Whether the OUST allows this or not is not the point. To be owed money by the
>client prepetition makes you a creditor and therefore you have an unwaivable
>conflict of interest (unless of course you waive any right to be paid which of
>course means you can never be burned because you are not ever owed money). I do
>
>not see how this is even debatable. It is never a favor or even kind to offer
>your services in such a manner so as to put yourself in an adverse position to
>your client.
>
>
>Simon
>
>------------------------------
>On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 1:46 PM PDT Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>>I posted (attached) the Hessinger case to this thread on 8/13.
>>
>>*************************
>>Mark J. Markus
>>Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>>Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>>(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (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 (see what this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Yes. I do agree that being owed by a client for past due fees and costs in nonbankruptcy matters does not necessarily place you in an unwaivable conflict. It may be challenging but not necessarily unethical. With a bankruptcy, however, you are by definition adverse. In this instance you are trying to get a discharge of the client's debts (including the one to you) yet you are simultaneously not wanting to have the client unilaterally refuse to pay. Look I am not suggesting that anybody in this group would look out for themselves to the detriment of the client's discharge but the exsistence of the actual conflict can not be overlooked simply because the amont of money owed is modest. The reality is (this is clear from the comments) that the lawyers who do this believe that the client should pay their fees yet the same lawyer would never counsel their client to pay any other unsecured obligation after commencement of a case or discharge. Perhaps if
you say to the client after you have performed all of the work, look you don't have to pay me and I won't be in the slightest bit angry if you don't but the value of my services was X so if you want to pay please do. S.
On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 1:12 AM PDT Kenneth Jay Schwartz wrote:
>Don't you do other types of law wherein you bill a client or receive payment
>after your services have been rendered? Does that put you in an "adverse"
>position vis--vis your client? You seem to forget that our ethical duties that
>accompanies representation overrides concerns about compensation. You are
>supposed to perform at the same level of competence/expertise whether or not a
>relatively small amount that your client has agreed to pay postpetition is
>actually paid or not.
> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
>LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
>21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
>Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
>Telephone: (818) 226-1205
>Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
>
>
>
>
>THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
>CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY
>BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
>CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN
>AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
>NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,
>DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
>IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.
>THANK YOU.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Wed, August 15, 2012 10:33:49 PM
>Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
>
>
>
>Whether the OUST allows this or not is not the point. To be owed money by the
>client prepetition makes you a creditor and therefore you have an unwaivable
>conflict of interest (unless of course you waive any right to be paid which of
>course means you can never be burned because you are not ever owed money). I do
>not see how this is even debatable. It is never a favor or even kind to offer
>your services in such a manner so as to put yourself in an adverse position to
>your client.
>
>
>Simon
>
>------------------------------
>On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 1:46 PM PDT Mark J. Markus wrote:
>
>>I posted (attached) the Hessinger case to this thread on 8/13.
>>
>>*************************
>>Mark J. Markus
>>Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>>11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>>Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>>(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (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 (see what this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Don't you do other types of law wherein you bill a client or receive payment
after your services have been rendered? Does that put you in an "adverse"position vis--vis your client? You seem to forget that our ethical duties that
accompanies representation overrides concerns about compensation. You aresupposed to perform at the same level of competence/expertise whether or not a
relatively small amount that your client has agreed to pay postpetition isactually paid or not.
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN
AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.
THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, August 15, 2012 10:33:49 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
Whether the OUST allows this or not is not the point. To be owed money by the
client prepetition makes you a creditor and therefore you have an unwaivable
conflict of interest (unless of course you waive any right to be paid which of
course means you can never be burned because you are not ever owed money). I do
not see how this is even debatable. It is never a favor or even kind to offer
your services in such a manner so as to put yourself in an adverse position to
your client.
Simon
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 1:46 PM PDT Mark J. Markus wrote:
>I posted (attached) the Hessinger case to this thread on 8/13.
>
>*************************
>Mark J. Markus
>Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (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 (see what this means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Whether the OUST allows this or not is not the point. To be owed money by the client prepetition makes you a creditor and therefore you have an unwaivable conflict of interest (unless of course you waive any right to be paid which of course means you can never be burned because you are not ever owed money). I do not see how this is even debatable. It is never a favor or even kind to offer your services in such a manner so as to put yourself in an adverse position to your client.
Simon
On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 1:46 PM PDT Mark J. Markus wrote:
>I posted (attached) the Hessinger case to this thread on 8/13.
>
>*************************
>Mark J. Markus
>Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (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 (see what this means at http://www.bklaw.com/bankruptcy-blog/20 ... efinition/)
>________________________________________________
>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 8/15/2012 1:12 PM, Henry Toles wrote:
>>
>>
>> In re: Hessinger.
>>
>> I believe it was Arizona, but they had offices in many states. They sold the contracts for post petition debt and were quite over the top. It was in the mid 90's.
>>
>> Hank
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Jason Wallach
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 15, 2012 11:16 AM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
>>
>>
>>
>> I couldn't find it but isn't there a Ninth Circuit case punishing a San Diego law firm for contempt for trying to collect a pre-petition fee post petition per their retainer agreement? I think the law firm argued unsuccessfully that it was permissible.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>> Jason Wallach
>>
>> jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Kenneth Jay Schwartz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I have had the discussion once with Carolyn at the UST. This is in 32 years of doing it on a normal basis when I feel that I can trust the client. I carefully explained it to her, and she said fine. Yes, I have been burned maybe a handful of times. It's just part of the business.
>>
>> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
>> LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
>> 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
>> Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
>> Telephone: (818) 226-1205
>> Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
>>
>>
>> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:*Giovanni Orantes > *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Sent:* Mon, August 13, 2012 3:43:12 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
>>
>> Not allowed. I accomodated a client once and got a friendly call from the U.S.T. instructing me to amend the petition to show that my fees had been discharged, which I did. The client ultimately paid me, any way, and sent me a nice "Thank You" note, but, of course, he unilaterally cut my bill a couple of hundred dollars. I'm very careful now.
>>
>>
>> -- Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
>> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
>> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
>> Los Angeles, CA 90010
>> Tel: (213) 389-4362
>> Fax: (877) 789-5776
>> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
>> website: www.gobklaw.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I posted (attached) the Hessinger case to this thread on 8/13.
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (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 (see what this
means at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charsetndows-1252
I couldn't find it but isn't there a Ninth Circuit case punishing a San Diego law firm for contempt for trying to collect a pre-petition fee post petition per their retainer agreement? I think the law firm argued unsuccessfully that it was permissible.
Jason
Jason Wallach
jwallach@gladstonemichel.com
On Aug 13, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Kenneth Jay Schwartz wrote:
>
> I have had the discussion once with Carolyn at the UST. This is in 32 years of doing it on a normal basis when I feel that I can trust the client. I carefully explained it to her, and she said fine. Yes, I have been burned maybe a handful of times. It's just part of the business.
>
> Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
> LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
> 21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
> Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
> Telephone: (818) 226-1205
> Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
>
>
>
> THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Mon, August 13, 2012 3:43:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
>
>
> Not allowed. I accomodated a client once and got a friendly call from the U.S.T. instructing me to amend the petition to show that my fees had been discharged, which I did. The client ultimately paid me, any way, and sent me a nice "Thank You" note, but, of course, he unilaterally cut my bill a couple of hundred dollars. I'm very careful now.
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
>
>
charsetndows-1252
I couldn't find it but isn't there a Ninth Circuit case punishing a San Diego law firm for contempt for trying to collect a pre-petition fee post petition per their retainer agreement? I think the law firm argued unsuccessfully that it was permissible.Jason
Jason Wallach
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I have had the discussion once with Carolyn at the UST. This is in 32 years of
doing it on a normal basis when I feel that I can trust the client. I carefully
explained it to her, and she said fine. Yes, I have been burned maybe a handful
of times. It's just part of the business.
Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ
21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640
Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226
Telephone: (818) 226-1205
Facsimile : (818) 226-1213
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY
BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND
CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN
AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY
NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW,DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY.
THANK YOU.
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, August 13, 2012 3:43:12 PM
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
Not allowed. I accomodated a client once and got a friendly call from the U.S.T.
instructing me to amend the petition to show that my fees had been discharged,
which I did. The client ultimately paid me, any way, and sent me a nice "Thank
You" note, but, of course, he unilaterally cut my bill a couple of hundreddollars. I'm very careful now.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
I have had the discussion once with Carolyn at the UST. This is in 32 years of doing it on a normal basis when I feel that I can trust the client. I carefully explained it to her, and she said fine. Yes, I have been burned maybe a handful of times. It's just part of the business. Kenneth Jay Schwartz, Esq.LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH JAY SCHWARTZ21031 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 640Woodland Hills, California 91364-2226Telephone: (818) 226-1205Facsimile : (818) 226-1213THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS E-MAIL IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL USE OF THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. THIS MESSAGE MAY BE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION, AND, AS SUCH, IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE
READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OR AN AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING IT TO THE DESIGNATED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, AND THAT ANY REVIEW, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS MESSAGE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY. THANK YOU.From: Giovanni Orantes <go@gobklaw.com>To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.comSent: Mon, August 13, 2012 3:43:12 PMSubject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7
Not allowed. I accomodated a client once and got a friendly call from the U.S.T. instructing me to amend the petition to show that my fees had been discharged, which I did. The client ultimately paid me, any way, and sent me a nice "Thank You" note, but, of course, he unilaterally cut my bill a couple of hundred dollars. I'm very careful now.
-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.