Failed Means Test with NO DPI
Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:47 pm
Establishing the scope of representation in your Retainer Agreement is very important. The more cases you handle the wiser you become regarding how best to structure your Retainer Agreements.
Discussion on this listserve regarding how much to charge consumers for services might be considered price fixing so it is discourage.
An excerpt from FTC.gov
Price fixing is an agreement (written, verbal, or inferred from conduct) among competitors that raises, lowers, or stabilizes prices or competitive terms. Generally, the antitrust laws require that each company establish prices and other terms on its own, without agreeing with a competitor. When consumers make choices about what products and services to buy, they expect that the price has been determined freely on the basis of supply and demand, not by an agreement among competitors. When competitors agree to restrict competition, the result is often higher prices. Accordingly, price fixing is a major concern of government antitrust enforcement.
A plain agreement among competitors to fix prices is almost always illegal, whether prices are fixed at a minimum, maximum, or within some range. Illegal price fixing occurs whenever two or more competitors agree to take actions that have the effect of raising, lowering or stabilizing the price of any product or service without any legitimate justification. Price-fixing schemes are often worked out in secret and can be hard to uncover, but an agreement can be discovered from "circumstantial" evidence. For example, if direct competitors have a pattern of unexplained identical contract terms or price behavior together with other factors (such as the lack of legitimate business explanation), unlawful price fixing may be the reason. Invitations to coordinate prices also can raise concerns, as when one competitor announces publicly that it is willing to end a price war if its rival is willing to do the same, and the terms are so specific that competitors may view this as an offer to set prices jointly.
Sent from my iPhone - please excuse typos.
> On Aug 11, 2016, at 6:26 PM, 'Jennifer L. Jones' jdgrad03@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Is that common to charge more if your case gets flagged by the UST? A current case I have was converted to a 13 but now they can't afford the $800 payment plan so I have to dismiss it. Should I be charging more for all of this extra work? I just considered it a part of the process and something I perhaps should've seen coming?
>
> The Law Office of Jennifer L. Jones
> 1243 S. La Cienega Blvd, Ste 8
> Los Angeles, CA 90035
> Tel: (619) 913-9818
>
> NOTICE: This message is intended for the addressee and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, copy, retain or disseminate this message or any attachment. If you have received this message in error, please call the sender immediately at (619) 913-9818 and delete all copies of the message and any attachments. Neither the transmission of this message or any attachment, nor any error in transmission or delivery shall constitute waiver of any applicable legal privilege.
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2016 6:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Failed Means Test with NO DPI
>
>
> I put a deduction on line 43 "special circumstances" for the amount of income reduction the debtor will experience in the immediate future. Helpful with high overtime debtors who are going to see a cutback in OT and make sure I/J reflect the new circumstances. Typically, the UST will file the Notice of Presumption of Abuse, then you have to talk them out of filing the motion to dismiss or convert - with evidence. Charge more!
>
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.