Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

I get fees/expenses reduced where I represent trustees all the time, so I wouldn't say that those applications are "gold plated entitlements."

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I don't know if it makes you feel any better but we can't charge for this stuff in Chapter 11 and we serve EVERYTHING under the sun.
I've never seen a fee app under 1k, do everyone is served. Certified mail to bank officers etc.
Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 12, 2012, at 5:07 PM, "Steven B. Lever" wrote:
> Dont underestimate the non-clerical, non-ministerial parts of the work, charging liberally for them is my take away; and apologies for the hyphens to Dennis, but I just cannot see those words, if they are words, without the hyphens.
>
>
>
> Im pretty sure that Chapter 13 work is the bastard child of bankruptcy practice and those of us who labor in those trenches are supposed to do it on the cheap to support the downtrodden middle class while our fees make sure we, are also in said downtrodden middle class. I compare this to relative to our Chapter 11 brethren & sistren and especially the royalty that represents trustees whose fee applications are gold plated entitlements, and know we Chapter 13 attorneys are third class.
>
>
>
> In case it is not evident from the mangled prose above, I resent that state of affairs, since we do some pretty complex work very efficiently.
>
>
>
> Steven B. Lever
>
>
>
Stephen Vokshori
> Sent: Monday, November 12, 2012 6:05 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] supp fee app in ch 13
>
>
>
>
>
> The trustee once quoted the following case in denying the portion of our fee app relating to clerical services:
>
>
>
> Services that are purely clerical, ministerial, or administrative in nature are not
>
> compensable from the estate. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 fn.10 (1989);
>
> Sousa v. Miguel, 32 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994). Billing for services including
>
> monitoring and reviewing the docket; electronically distributing documents; preparing
>
> services packages, serving pleadings, updating service lists, and preparing proofs of
>
> service; and e-filing and uploading pleadings are disallowed. Tasks of this nature are not
>
> professional services, and their costs must be absorbed by the firm as an overhead
>
> expense. In re Schneider, 2008 WL 4447092 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Sept 26, 2008).
>
>
>
> Obviously, we werent happy with this logic but we accepted their reduction. The way I see it, pleadings were prepared to benefit the estate. Those pleadings must be served and filed in order for the benefit to incur to the estate. The relationship is direct and clear.
>
>
>
>
>
> Stephen Vokshori
>
> Vokshori Law Group
>
> 1010 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 1404
>
> Los Angeles, CA 90017
>
>
>
> main: (213) 986-4323
>
> fax: (310) 881-6996
>
> email: stephen@voklaw.com
>
> web: www.VokLaw.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Mark J. Markus
> Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 9:26 AM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] supp fee app in ch 13
>
>
>
> That's true, and if followed to its logical conclusion, would keep the case open forever since every fee app filed would result in a subsequent fee app.
>
>
> *************************
> 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 11/9/2012 9:18 AM, Hale Andrew Antico wrote:
>
> Judge Zurzolo, for one, disallows estimates of future services in a fee app, even if it's the time estimated for services in the present fee app.
>
>
>
Mark J. Markus
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 5:24 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] supp fee app in ch 13
>
> Remember, you can seek reimbursement for costs and time in serving creditors as well as preparing the Fee App. Of course, that would need to go in the subsequent fee application unless it is estimated.
>
>
> *************************
> 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 11/8/2012 4:07 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com wrote:
>
> Interesting. I agree "application" is singular, but I really wonder if the rule's drafters intended to create a loophole for the attorneys to submit several fee applications under $1,000 to skirt the requirement to serve all creditors? I have always believed that at least the intent of the LBR 3015-1(x)(5) was to draw a line after which the creditors needed to be notified in order to provide due process notice for protecting their interests. I have always interpreted the intent of the LBR 3015-1(x)(5) was to be cumulative because it says "...additional fees and costs not exceeding $1,000 over and above the limits set forth in the RARA and Guidelines need be served only on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor." If the rule was intended to be per application wouldn't LBR 3015-1(x)(5) only say "...additional fees and costs not exceeding $1,000 need be served only on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor?" Attorneys must disclose all prior fees paid and fee applications pending, in each supplemental fee application. It seems antithetical to the intent of the rule to me that an attorney could file a fee application every couple days or weeks for under $1,000 and be able to ignore all previous supplemental fee applications in determining whether creditors need be served.
>
>
>
> That said, if judges are letting it slide, I would love to save myself a hassle on future supplemental fee applications....
>
>
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
>
> In a message dated 11/8/2012 2:24:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, pat@fitzgreenlaw.com writes:
>
>
>
> I read it the other way. It is written in the singular which I take to mean each fee application.
>
> 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
>
jesseelaw@aol.com
> Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:37 PM
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] supp fee app in ch 13
>
>
>
> I have always understood that to mean, the first $1,000.00 above the RARA fee for basic services, not $1.000 for each fee application.
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
> In a message dated 11/8/2012 1:32:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, kirkinhermosa@gmail.com writes:
>
>
>
> LBR 3015-1(x)(5) states that:
>
> "An application by debtors counsel for additional fees and costs not exceeding
> $1,000 over and above the limits set forth in the RARA and Guidelines need be
> served only on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor."
>
> Does this mean that any supplemental fee app under $1K only needs to be served on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor?
>
> What if there is a first fee app for less than $1K, and a second fee app later on for less than $1K. Combined they are over $1K over the limits in the RARA (assuming maximum RARA charge). Does this scenario require service on all creditors in the 2nd supplemental fee app?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I don't know if it makes you feel any better but we can't charge for this stuff in Chapter 11 and we serve EVERYTHING under the sun. I've never seen a fee app under 1k, do everyone is served. Certified mail to bank officers etc. Sent from my iPhoneOn Nov 12, 2012, at 5:07 PM, "Steven B. Lever" <sblever@leverlaw.com> wrote:


The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Don't underestimate the non-clerical, non-ministerial parts of the work,
charging liberally for them is my take away; and apologies for the
hyphens to Dennis, but I just cannot see those words, if they are words,
without the hyphens.
I'm pretty sure that Chapter 13 work is the bastard child of bankruptcy
practice and those of us who labor in those trenches are supposed to do
it on the cheap to support the downtrodden middle class while our fees
make sure we, are also in said downtrodden middle class. I compare this
to relative to our Chapter 11 brethren & sistren and especially the
royalty that represents trustees whose fee applications are gold plated
entitlements, and know we Chapter 13 attorneys are third class.
In case it is not evident from the mangled prose above, I resent that
state of affairs, since we do some pretty complex work very efficiently.
Steven B. Lever

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The trustee once quoted the following case in denying the portion of our fee
app relating to clerical services:
Services that are purely clerical, ministerial, or administrative in nature
are not
compensable from the estate. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288 fn.10
(1989);
Sousa v. Miguel, 32 F.3d 1370, 1374 (9th Cir. 1994). Billing for services
including
monitoring and reviewing the docket; electronically distributing documents;
preparing
services packages, serving pleadings, updating service lists, and preparing
proofs of
service; and e-filing and uploading pleadings are disallowed. Tasks of this
nature are not
professional services, and their costs must be absorbed by the firm as an
overhead
expense. In re Schneider, 2008 WL 4447092 (Bankr. N.D.Cal. Sept 26, 2008).
Obviously, we weren't happy with this logic but we accepted their reduction.
The way I see it, pleadings were prepared to benefit the estate. Those
pleadings must be served and filed in order for the benefit to incur to the
estate. The relationship is direct and clear.
Stephen Vokshori
Vokshori Law Group
1010 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 1404
Los Angeles, CA 90017
main: (213) 986-4323
fax: (310) 881-6996
email: stephen@voklaw.com
web: www.VokLaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

That's true, and if followed to its logical conclusion, would keep
the case open forever since every fee app filed would result in a
subsequent fee app.
*************************
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.

Judge Zurzolo, for one, disallows estimates of future services in a fee app,
even if it's the time estimated for services in the present fee app.
_____

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Right. Serving the creditors is likely considered clerical.
I have been challenged on that before.
On Nov 8, 2012 6:27 PM, wrote:
> **
> Except for the time spent that is deemed "clerical" which we have to
> eat...!
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
> In a message dated 11/8/2012 5:23:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> bklawr@yahoo.com writes:
>
>
>
> Remember, you can seek reimbursement for costs and time in serving
> creditors as well as preparing the Fee App. Of course, that would need to
> go in the subsequent fee application unless it is estimated.
>
> *************************
> 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 11/8/2012 4:07 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com wrote:
>
> Interesting. I agree "application" is singular, but I really wonder if
> the rule's drafters intended to create a loophole for the attorneys to
> submit several fee applications under $1,000 to skirt the requirement to
> serve all creditors? I have always believed that at least the intent of
> the LBR 3015-1(x)(5) was to draw a line after which the creditors needed
> to be notified in order to provide due process notice for protecting
> their interests. I have always interpreted the intent of the LBR
> 3015-1(x)(5) was to be cumulative because it says "...additional fees and
> costs not exceeding $1,000 *over and above the limits set forth in the
> RARA and Guidelines* need be served only on the chapter 13 trustee and
> the debtor." If the rule was intended to be per application wouldn't LBR
> 3015-1(x)(5) only say "...additional fees and costs not exceeding $1,000
> need be served only on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor?" Attorneys
> must disclose all prior fees paid and fee applications pending, in each
> supplemental fee application. It seems antithetical to the intent of the
> rule to me that an attorney could file a fee application every couple days
> or weeks for under $1,000 and be able to ignore all previous supplemental
> fee applications in determining whether creditors need be served.
>
> That said, if judges are letting it slide, I would love to save myself a
> hassle on future supplemental fee applications....
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
>
>
> In a message dated 11/8/2012 2:24:02 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> pat@fitzgreenlaw.com writes:
>
>
>
> I read it the other way. It is written in the singular which I take to
> mean each fee application. ****
>
> ****
>
> 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****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *On Behalf Of *jesseelaw@aol.com
> *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2012 1:37 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] supp fee app in ch 13****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> I have always understood that to mean, the first $1,000.00 above the RARA
> fee for basic services, not $1.000 for each fee application. ****
>
> ****
>
> Mark T. Jessee
> Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
> "A Debt Relief Agency"
> 50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
> Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
> (805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)****
>
> ****
>
> In a message dated 11/8/2012 1:32:48 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> kirkinhermosa@gmail.com writes:****
>
> ****
>
> LBR 3015-1(x)(5) states that:
>
> "An application by debtors counsel for additional fees and costs not
> exceeding
> $1,000 over and above the limits set forth in the RARA and Guidelines need
> be
> served only on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor."
>
> Does this mean that any supplemental fee app under $1K only needs to be
> served on the chapter 13 trustee and the debtor?
>
> What if there is a first fee app for less than $1K, and a second fee app
> later on for less than $1K. Combined they are over $1K over the limits in
> the RARA (assuming maximum RARA charge). Does this scenario require
> service on all creditors in the 2nd supplemental fee app?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> www.calibankruptcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
> exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
> the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
> reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
> please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
> message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
> attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
> message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
> be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director. ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
Right. Serving the creditors is likely considered clerical.
I have been challenged on that before.
On Nov 8, 2012 6:27 PM, <jesseelaw@aol.com> wrote:
Except for the time spent that is deemed"clerical" which we have to
eat...!
Mark T.
JesseeLaw Offices of Mark T. Jessee"A Debt Relief Agency"50 W.
Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200Thousand Oaks, CA 91360(805) 497-5868 (805)
497-5864 (Facsimile)
In a message dated 11/8/2012 5:23:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bklawr@yahoo.com writes:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Except for the time spent that is deemed "clerical" which we have to
eat...!
Mark T. Jessee
Law Offices of Mark T. Jessee
"A Debt Relief Agency"
50 W. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 200
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360
(805) 497-5868 (805) 497-5864 (Facsimile)
In a message dated 11/8/2012 5:23:07 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
bklawr@yahoo.com writes:
Remember, you can seek reimbursement for costs and time in serving
creditors as well as preparing the Fee App. Of course, that would need to go in
the subsequent fee application unless it is estimated.
*************************
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/_ (http://www.bklaw.com/)
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board ofLegal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency (see what this means
at

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Remember, you can seek reimbursement for costs and time in serving
creditors as well as preparing the Fee App. Of course, that would
need to go in the subsequent fee application unless it is estimated.
*************************
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.

Dennis M. will require you to go with the noncumulative side.
- John D. Faucher
818/889-8080
On 11/8/12 2:41 PM, Jay S. Fleischman wrote:
>
> Which means that it's not cumulative. Alrighty then - we've got a
> split of opinion. I'm going with the non-cumulative side just because
> it's easier
>
>
>
> On Nov 8, 2012, at 2:37 PM, "Stella Havkin" > wrote:
>
>>
>> All the time.
>>
>> *From:*cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com ] *On Behalf
>> Of *Jay S. Fleischman
>> *Sent:* Thursday, November 08, 2012 2:35 PM
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] supp fee app in ch 13
>>
>> Got it. Wonder if anyone has filed two successive fee apps for $900
>> and gotten them through under this subsection.
>>
>> On Nov 8, 2012, at 2:17 PM, jesseelaw@aol.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> LBR 3015-1(x)(5
>>
>>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.