.jpg)
Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7 [1
So what I'm getting is that though it may be done as an accommodation by a
lawyer in favor of a truly needy client ... it's not somehow been made
legal to collect these fees post-petition.
As to Mr. Dangerously, I agree.
Thanks.
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
> **
>
>
> Slightly off-topic: Once, I trusted a sincere, caring and honest client to
> pay me the balance of his fee, postpetition. Once.
>
> Hale
>
> ________________________________
>
>
> Mark J. Markus
>
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 3:01 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7 [1
> Attachment]
>
> [Attachment(s) from Mark J. Markus included below]
>
> See In re Hessinger, 110 F.3d 685, (9th Cir. 1997) (copy attached).
>
> I think what it comes down to is whether the services being rendered are
> prepetition or postpetition. If prepetition, the attorney can put in the
> fee agreement that it is due after discharge, but he/she cannot try to
> collect on it without violating 524. I suspect the attorneys doing this
> are high-volume practitioners who just take the risk and hope they get
> paid.
>
> *************************
> 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 ... definition
> /)
> ________________________________________________
> 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 8/13/2012 2:53 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
>
> I've been going through various court filings over the past few
> weeks in an effort to familiarize myself with how things are run in these
> parts. I've come across something troubling to my outsider's eyes and was
> wondering if it's the way things go as a practical matter.
>
> In a no-asset Chapter 7 case filed in Los Angeles for a renter, an
> attorney charged $x in total. Of that sum, only a portion was paid
> pre-petition and the balance is stated to be due post-petition.
>
> According to the lawyer's website, he's certified as a specialist by
> the State Bar Of California and the American Bankruptcy Board Of
> Certification.
>
> Is this permissible in the Los Angeles court? In any court in CDCA?
> I'm not looking to rock the boat, but this seems odd.
>
> -------------
> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>
> 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.
>
>
>
So what I'm getting is that though it may be done as an accommodation by a lawyer in favor of a truly needy client ... it's not somehow been made legal to collect these fees post-petition.As to Mr. Dangerously, I agree.
Thanks.On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 3:19 PM, Hale Andrew Antico <bk.lawyer@gmail.com> wrote:
Slightly off-topic: Once, I trusted a sincere, caring and honest client to
pay me the balance of his fee, postpetition. Once.
Hale
________________________________
yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Mark J. Markus
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 3:01 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Payment of fees post-petition in Chapter 7 [1
Attachment]
[Attachment(s) from Mark J. Markus included below]
See In re Hessinger, 110 F.3d 685, (9th Cir. 1997) (copy attached).
I think what it comes down to is whether the services being rendered are
prepetition or postpetition. If prepetition, the attorney can put in the
fee agreement that it is due after discharge, but he/she cannot try to
collect on it without violating 524. I suspect the attorneys doing this
are high-volume practitioners who just take the risk and hope they get paid.
*************************
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 ... definition
/)
________________________________________________
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 8/13/2012 2:53 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
I've been going through various court filings over the past few
weeks in an effort to familiarize myself with how things are run in these
The post was migrated from Yahoo.