Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Frankly, I would file the opposition even if only on the standing issue (as
there seems to be some merit to the argument if it satisfies In Re Veal
though most Judges reject the argument) and file evidentiary objections and
take the financial hit because the RARA is interpreted by judges as
obligating you to represent the client and collect through the plan.
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
Frankly, I would file the opposition even if only on the standing issue (as there seems to be some merit to the argument if it satisfies In Re Veal though most Judges reject the argument) and file evidentiary objections and take the financial hit because the RARA is interpreted by judges as obligating you to represent the client and collect through the plan.
-- 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.

So if the debtor won't sign the agreement for additional services and pay
the additional retainer, do you file something with the Court saying no
answer because debtor won't pay? Or do you just not answer, and keep
documentation of why you didn't answer?
Thanks to all for the helpful responses.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dennis wrote:
> **
>
>
> Kirk:
> Rara saws you will oppose mrs. If you don't, you have violated your
> agreement. As a result, you must document why you will not oppose. I try
> to get the debtor to sign an instruction to counsel not to oppose. If the
> debtor instructs you to reply anyway, you have to make a motion to withdraw
> to avoid ethical conflict.
>
> The rara, however, does not say the reply to the mrs is covered in the
> rara fee. So second way to avoid conflict is to demand a second retainer,
> just a signed contract, for an additional fee. Most won't sign for
> frivolous answer, so you can write to client, if they won't sign an
> instruction not to reply, and say not answering because debtor won't pay.
>
> D
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
>
>
>
> So you will represent the client even when you believe the objection is
> frivolous and just intended to buy time?
> O
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Hit the send button by mistake.
>>
>> I have had cases were I knew the Client would lose and result in him
>> stopping plan payments. Thereby causing the case to get dismissed and me
>> never getting paid.
>>
>> This is the risk we all take by doing 13's under RARA
>>
>
>
>
>
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.
So if the debtor won't sign the agreement for additional services and pay the additional retainer, do you file something with the Court saying no answer because debtor won't pay? Or do you just not answer, and keep documentation of why you didn't answer?
Thanks to all for the helpful responses. On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Dennis <easky1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Kirk:Rara saws you will oppose mrs. If you don't, you have violated your agreement. As a result, you must document why you will not oppose. I try to get the debtor to sign an instruction to counsel not to oppose. If the debtor instructs you to reply anyway, you have to make a motion to withdraw to avoid ethical conflict.
The rara, however, does not say the reply to the mrs is covered in the rara fee. So second way to avoid conflict is to demand a second retainer, just a signed contract, for an additional fee. Most won't sign for frivolous answer, so you can write to client, if they won't sign an instruction not to reply, and say not answering because debtor won't pay.
DSent from my iPhoneOn Jun 27, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
So you will represent the client even when you believe the objection is frivolous and just intended to buy time?
O
Hit the send button by mistake.I have had cases were I knew the Client would lose and result in him stopping plan payments. Thereby causing the case to get dismissed and me never getting paid.
This is the risk we all take by doing 13's under RA
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

You should read the motion carefully, however, because there are often ways
to oppose, even if only, for example, evidentiary objections as such
objections will defeat the motion just the same as a substantive opposition.
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
You should read the motion carefully, however, because there are often ways to oppose, even if only, for example, evidentiary objections as such objections will defeat the motion just the same as a substantive opposition.
-- 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.

charset-ascii
Kirk:
Rara saws you will oppose mrs. If you don't, you have violated your agreement. As a result, you must document why you will not oppose. I try to get the debtor to sign an instruction to counsel not to oppose. If the debtor instructs you to reply anyway, you have to make a motion to withdraw to avoid ethical conflict.
The rara, however, does not say the reply to the mrs is covered in the rara fee. So second way to avoid conflict is to demand a second retainer, just a signed contract, for an additional fee. Most won't sign for frivolous answer, so you can write to client, if they won't sign an instruction not to reply, and say not answering because debtor won't pay.
D
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 27, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Kirk Brennan wrote:
> So you will represent the client even when you believe the objection is frivolous and just intended to buy time?
>
> O
>
> Hit the send button by mistake.
>
> I have had cases were I knew the Client would lose and result in him stopping plan payments. Thereby causing the case to get dismissed and me never getting paid.
>
> This is the risk we all take by doing 13's under RARA
>
Kirk:Rara saws you will oppose mrs. If you don't, you have violated your agreement. As a result, you must document why you will not oppose. I try to get the debtor to sign an instruction to counsel not to oppose. If the debtor instructs you to reply anyway, you have to make a motion to withdraw to avoid ethical conflict. The rara, however, does not say the reply to the mrs is covered in the rara fee. So second way to avoid conflict is to demand a second retainer, just a signed contract, for an additional fee. Most won't sign for frivolous answer, so you can write to client, if they won't sign an instruction not to reply, and say not answering because debtor won't pay. DSent from my iPhoneOn Jun 27, 2012, at 8:34 AM, Kirk Brennan <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:

So you will represent the client even when you believe the objection is frivolous and just intended to buy time?
O

Hit the send button by mistake.I have had cases were I knew the Client would lose and result in him stopping plan payments. Thereby causing the case to get dismissed and me never getting paid.
This is the risk we all take by doing 13's under RARA
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

So you will represent the client even when you believe the objection is
frivolous and just intended to buy time?
On Jun 27, 2012 8:14 AM, "Leventhal Law Group, P.C." wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hit the send button by mistake.
>
> I have had cases were I knew the Client would lose and result in him
> stopping plan payments. Thereby causing the case to get dismissed and me
> never getting paid.
>
> This is the risk we all take by doing 13's under RARA.
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
> for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
> California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
> business hours.
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential,
> and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto)
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original
> and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
>
> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not reprenet you until a written
> fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal
> Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
>
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:59 AM, "Kirk Brennan"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What if debtor insists on opposing MFRS despite being a year behind on
> postpetition mortgage payments on the grounds that the lender lacks
> standing and is refusing to do a loan mod?
> Would you require a retainer in that case?
>
> In other words, a situation where there is a very limited probability of
> success but debtor insists on plowing forward.
> On Jun 26, 2012 10:05 PM, "Mark T. Jessee" wrote:
>
>
>
So you will represent the client even when you believe the objection is frivolous and just intended to buy time?
On Jun 27, 2012 8:14 AM, "Leventhal Law Group, P.C." <law@3yl.com> wrote:
Hit the send button by mistake.I have had cases were I knew the Client would lose and result in him stopping plan payments. Thereby causing the case to get dismissed and me never getting paid.
This is the risk we all take by doing 13's under RARA.Jonathan Leventhal, esq.Leventhal Law Group, P.C.818-347-5800
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not reprenet you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:59 AM, "Kirk Brennan" <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
What if debtor insists on opposing MFRS despite being a year behind on postpetition mortgage payments on the grounds that the lender lacks standing and is refusing to do a loan mod?
Would you require a retainer in that case?
In other words, a situation where there is a very limited probability of success but debtor insists on plowing forward.
On Jun 26, 2012 10:05 PM, "Mark T. Jessee" <mjessee@jesseelaw.com> wrote:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

So you will represent the client even when you believe the objection is
frivolous and just intended to buy time?
On Jun 27, 2012 8:14 AM, "Leventhal Law Group, P.C." wrote:
> **
>
>
> Hit the send button by mistake.
>
> I have had cases were I knew the Client would lose and result in him
> stopping plan payments. Thereby causing the case to get dismissed and me
> never getting paid.
>
> This is the risk we all take by doing 13's under RARA.
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice
> for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with
> California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular
> business hours.
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential,
> and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any
> review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto)
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient,
> please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original
> and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
>
> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not reprenet you until a written
> fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal
> Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
>
> On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:59 AM, "Kirk Brennan"
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> What if debtor insists on opposing MFRS despite being a year behind on
> postpetition mortgage payments on the grounds that the lender lacks
> standing and is refusing to do a loan mod?
> Would you require a retainer in that case?
>
> In other words, a situation where there is a very limited probability of
> success but debtor insists on plowing forward.
> On Jun 26, 2012 10:05 PM, "Mark T. Jessee" wrote:
>
>
>
So you will represent the client even when you believe the objection is frivolous and just intended to buy time?
On Jun 27, 2012 8:14 AM, "Leventhal Law Group, P.C." <law@3yl.com> wrote:
Hit the send button by mistake.I have had cases were I knew the Client would lose and result in him stopping plan payments. Thereby causing the case to get dismissed and me never getting paid.
This is the risk we all take by doing 13's under RARA.Jonathan Leventhal, esq.Leventhal Law Group, P.C.818-347-5800
NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office during regular business hours.
This email and any attachments thereto may contain private, confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of this email and any attachments thereto.
Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not reprenet you until a written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement have been paid.
On Jun 27, 2012, at 7:59 AM, "Kirk Brennan" <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
What if debtor insists on opposing MFRS despite being a year behind on postpetition mortgage payments on the grounds that the lender lacks standing and is refusing to do a loan mod?
Would you require a retainer in that case?
In other words, a situation where there is a very limited probability of success but debtor insists on plowing forward.
On Jun 26, 2012 10:05 PM, "Mark T. Jessee" <mjessee@jesseelaw.com> wrote:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

What if debtor insists on opposing MFRS despite being a year behind on
postpetition mortgage payments on the grounds that the lender lacks
standing and is refusing to do a loan mod?
Would you require a retainer in that case?
In other words, a situation where there is a very limited probability of
success but debtor insists on plowing forward.
On Jun 26, 2012 10:05 PM, "Mark T. Jessee" wrote:
What if debtor insists on opposing MFRS despite being a year behind on postpetition mortgage payments on the grounds that the lender lacks standing and is refusing to do a loan mod?
Would you require a retainer in that case?
In other words, a situation where there is a very limited probability of success but debtor insists on plowing forward.
On Jun 26, 2012 10:05 PM, "Mark T. Jessee" <mjessee@jesseelaw.com> wrote:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

It is an option, but I do not think the attorney can require payment up
front for additional services in a 13. At least not after filing the
case. There is no limited scope of appearance in a chapter 13. The
attorney must represent the debtor in needed additional services, if
the case is still feasible. Can't just refuse to object to proof of
claim or oppose relief from stay because client can't pay an additional
retainer. Need to pursue supplemental fees through plan if client
can't pay up front. Besides client should not have any extra money in
a 13 to pay a retainer since all disposable income is to go into plan.
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)
NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED
RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION, AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE
PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW,
USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN E-MAIL
AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE
FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:24:49 -0400, "Leventhal Law Group, P.C."
wrote:
Yes, you are correct. Although I have it come from plan
payments if their is enough in the plan.
>
> Jonathan Leventhal, esq.Leventhal Law Group, P.C.
> 818-347-5800
>
> NO EX-PARTE NOTICE VIA VOICE MAIL OR EMAIL: I do not accept e-mail> notice for ex parte Applications via voicemail or by email. You must
> comply with California Law and give notice to a person in my office
> during regular business hours.
>
> This email and any attachments thereto may contain private,
> confidential, and privileged material for the sole use of the
> intended recipient. Any review, copying, or distribution of this
> email (or any attachments thereto) by others is strictly prohibited.
> If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender
> immediately and permanently delete the original and any copies of
> this email and any attachments thereto.
>
> Leventhal Law Group, P.C. is a Debt Relief Agency under federal law.
>
> Note: The Leventhal Law Group, P.C. does not reprenet you until a
> written fee agreement has been signed by you and a representative of
> the Leventhal Law Group, P.C. and all fees listed in the agreement
> have been paid.
>
> On Jun 26, 2012, at 7:19 PM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
>
> Would someone please confirm that post-confirmation in a
> chapter 13 case, the attorney can require a retainer from the client
> for additional services provided such funds are deposited into the
> attorney's trust account until a supplemental fee app is approved?
> That is my reading of the RARA (Rights and Responsibilities Agreement).
>
> 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.
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Would someone please confirm that post-confirmation in a chapter 13 case,
the attorney can require a retainer from the client for additional services
provided such funds are deposited into the attorney's trust account until a
supplemental fee app is approved?
That is my reading of the RARA (Rights and Responsibilities Agreement).
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.
Would someone please confirm that post-confirmation in a chapter 13 case, the attorney can require a retainer from the client for additional services provided such funds are deposited into the attorney's trust account until a supplemental fee app is approved?
That is my reading of the RARA (Rights and Responsibilities Agreement).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.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.