Is my lawyer an idiot?

[RLOPE]

My lawyer seems to be indiscriminately switching things up on me. First, he totally mis-stated my income. Then when we spoke and agreed to a certain plan, he switched that up on me too, essentially doubling my payment. He says, "well... you don't want to show so much $ in this area 'cause then you'll get objections, and it'll cost you to modify the plan after"

WTF!!!!!!!

[HHM]

A bit vague on particulars to really provide any guidance. It is the job of your attorney to advise you on your chapter 13 plan and tinker with it to make it the best plan possible that can be confirmed by the court

Doubling is relative, if the payment went from $100 to $200, not a big deal; if it went from $1000 to $2000, that is likely a problem.

[lillymarlene]

Just before filing, I noticed one of my creditors (for about $10k) had been left off. This would have taken my 3 year plan from about $200 to $300. So, instead I opted for another year, and this is how I have one of those "oddball" 4 year plans.

[LadyInTheRed]

Just before filing, I noticed one of my creditors (for about $10k) had been left off. This would have taken my 3 year plan from about $200 to $300. So, instead I opted for another year, and this is how I have one of those "oddball" 4 year plans.

Was that a secured creditor? The addition of an unsecured creditor should not change the amount of payment or length of your plan.

[lillymarlene]

It was unsecured, I had 3 credit cards with one bank, 2 personal and one was supposed to be a business card. I filed before I found this forum.. to think, maybe I could have saved myself an additional year!

Then also maybe it was coincidental, I don't know. I remember of signing the "corrected" petition, getting back home with it, and then realizing this was for about $100 more. I was horrified, to say the least, and immediately asked if that if I added another year, would I be more likely to keep these payments at $200.

[MSbklawyer]

My lawyer seems to be indiscriminately switching things up on me. First, he totally mis-stated my income. Then when we spoke and agreed to a certain plan, he switched that up on me too, essentially doubling my payment. He says, "well... you don't want to show so much $ in this area 'cause then you'll get objections, and it'll cost you to modify the plan after"

WTF!!!!!!!

I made a screwup like that once. I had two clients at about the same time whose names were an exchange of first and last name, like this: Client 1 = Robin Williams Client 2 = William Robins. To make it worse, they lived on the same road and thus had similar addresses. The similarities ended there, but I had the most awful time keeping them keeping them straight in my mind. I would be talking to "Robin" on the phone, thinking I was talking to "William" and he would think I was crazy because I was talking about things that had nothing to do with him.

Me: How much are the payments on your Harley?

Him: What Harley?

Me: The one you're trying to keep in Chapter 13.

Him: I'm filing 7. Are you ok?

Me: Is this William?

Him: Williams. Robin Williams.

It was a nightmare and they both thought I was nuts I am sure.

[df04527]

I made a screwup like that once. I had two clients at about the same time whose names were an exchange of first and last name, like this: Client 1 = Robin Williams Client 2 = William Robins. To make it worse, they lived on the same road and thus had similar addresses. The similarities ended there, but I had the most awful time keeping them keeping them straight in my mind. I would be talking to "Robin" on the phone, thinking I was talking to "William" and he would think I was crazy because I was talking about things that had nothing to do with him.

Me: How much are the payments on your Harley?

Him: What Harley?

Me: The one you're trying to keep in Chapter 13.

Him: I'm filing 7. Are you ok?

Me: Is this William?

Him: Williams. Robin Williams.

It was a nightmare and they both thought I was nuts I am sure.

Omg I have had the exact same thing happen! I couldnt keep them straight for the life of me. At least mine had different streets though! They also didnt see the humor in it either....sigh

[RLOPE]

HHM - Using round numbers, I have credit debt of 100k, and student loan debt of 100k. At first, my lawyer told me I'd pay 4% on the credit debt, that being about 67 per month and would have to stop paying on my student loan debt in the meanwhile, i.e. the 5 year plan. Now he tells me that the 4% payment is on the 100k of credit debt AND the student loan debt of 100K, calculating to 134 per mo. Does this make sense to you? I just don't get why I wasn't told this at the beginning. And he tells me that I need to at least go for a 4% payment to avoid objections, however I DON'T have that disposable income!!!

[kaygee]

Yeah, my lawyer used the bait and switch, I feel on me, started with a $300 payment based on courthouse steps value of my main asset and then it got switched to $500. My question is , who is he working for? The trustee or me?

[kaygee]

I'm getting the feeling that this is how it works. I just get the feeling that the lawyers work for the court and the trustees and are in it to get what they can out of us for the system. They really do not give a a shit about us because they have to work with the courts all the time and only have to work with us one time. It is so much different than the criminal system.

[LadyInTheRed]

HHM - Using round numbers, I have credit debt of 100k, and student loan debt of 100k. At first, my lawyer told me I'd pay 4% on the credit debt, that being about 67 per month and would have to stop paying on my student loan debt in the meanwhile, i.e. the 5 year plan. Now he tells me that the 4% payment is on the 100k of credit debt AND the student loan debt of 100K, calculating to 134 per mo. Does this make sense to you? I just don't get why I wasn't told this at the beginning. And he tells me that I need to at least go for a 4% payment to avoid objections, however I DON'T have that disposable income!!!

Your payment should be based on your disposable income, not your amount of unsecured debt. It may be true that paying 4% to creditors will reduce the chance of objection by your particular trustee. But, that is no reason to put you in a plan you cannot afford. If the trustee objects to your plan, he/she will have to come up with a better reason than the percentage going to unsecured creditors. Ask your attorney what in your plan, other than the percentage to unsecured creditors, is vulnerable to objection. For example, is there an expense that is too high? Ask him why he is now including the student loan. What CA court are you in?

I'm getting the feeling that this is how it works. I just get the feeling that the lawyers work for the court and the trustees and are in it to get what they can out of us for the system. They really do not give a a shit about us because they have to work with the courts all the time and only have to work with us one time. It is so much different than the criminal system.

This is not how it works. If your attorney is not working in your best interests, you hired the wrong attorney. You should assert yourself and insist your attorney work to protect you. If they refuse to do that, report them to the state bar.

[lillymarlene]

And he tells me that I need to at least go for a 4% payment to avoid objections,

I remember of being told something like this too, that it should be kept to a percentage, even though it was very small.

[shark66]

I remember of being told something like this too, that it had to be kept to a percentage, even though it was very small.

While I have no reason to doubt that people are actually being told stuff like this, it's absolute nonsense...

Is it better to have a 4% payback (or 7% or whatever) and have the plan fail, since there's no real DMI to support it?

It's legal advice of this nature that got me to file pro se...

Don't get me wrong: there are many good BK attorneys out there. I just couldn't find one at the time, and I *had* to file...

My $0.02 only...

Good luck to us all.

[toojerm]

I've suspected the whole time that my attorney's office sold info on unfiled claims to ecast settlement corps. Because given my income, and obvious ability to pay my 100% plan @ $2250/mo (on top of my $1300 mortgage), why would a financial institution sell a sure thing for pennies on the dollar? But Ecorps bought up half of my claims.

[LadyInTheRed]

I've suspected the whole time that my attorney's office sold info on unfiled claims to ecast settlement corps. Because given my income, and obvious ability to pay my 100% plan @ $2250/mo (on top of my $1300 mortgage), why would a financial institution sell a sure thing for pennies on the dollar? But Ecorps bought up half of my claims.

Your completion of the plan is not a sure thing. There is no guaranty your income will stay the same and that you will complete your Chap 13 and pay 100% to creditors. Banks sell debt to ecast all the time. It doesn't mean your attorney sold your information. I don't think ecast has to pursue debt to buy. I am pretty sure the banks offer it to them. Even if they do have to go searching for debts to buy, your BK case is public record. Anybody can find your list of creditors on your petition and see which creditors filed claims.