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.