Interesting Lawyer experience.....

[signal]

So I interviewed with lawyer today and it was much different than the other ones I had interviewed, in a negative way. My wife was represented by a personal injury attorney a few years back and they were a great firm, so we asked them for a "reference" on BK and they pointed us to this other attorney who did not work for them as their firm does not do BK only personal injury.

This was the only "lawyer referral" we did, and we just wanted to check i out.

We sat down with his legal assistant, who was not impressive. She gets out her NADA guide to look up the value of my 2010 VW. I told her I bought it at about MSRP and put no money down but she continued to try and look it up, finally i told her I haven't even made a payment yet, and she realized where I was going. I mean its a 2010 with no money down.......

She was trying to do the entire intake interview and I demanded to see the lawyer as it was told to me when I setup this appointment I would be speaking to a lawyer.

He told me he does more BK's in my county than anyone else, which was a red flag to me (bk mill maybe?). And then he told me he would put me ch13 because in ch7 there may be some objections which means litigation and he doesn't do litigation! He told me if he gets into litigation he farms it out to another firm.

I didn't like this, I mean, I am a complex case I know: business, high income, high debt. There may very well be some litigation. If all they are doing is filling out paperwork I can do that myself, but I am wanting to hire an attorney because there may need to be a fight coming for me to get the best BK I can get.

In any case, I am passing, but I had no idea that some BK attorneys don't do litigation!

[momtoroxy]

I would be running away! LOL. The first attorney we met with was at a large firm and she was worthless. She tried to tell me that my Social Security Disability counted towards the means test and didn't even bother calculating everything...and just flat out told us we had to do a 13. We, of course, met with another attorney. She is great. It is a small firm (her and her husband). We filed Chapter 7 on October 13th. I know you'll find another lawyer who knows what they are talking about

Good luck!

[liz417]

He's going to put you in a ch 13 because HE DOESN'T do litigations?!?? NEXT........
Sounds like this attorney only wants the "easy BK cases", I continue looking around for someone with more experience.

Good Luck!

[JimKutkowski]

If your income is too high, you don't qualify for Chapter 7, so 13 may be your only option.

I use Kelly blue book, I use it every time, even on a new car, this attorney did nothing wrong.

I don't do litigation either, but most consumer cases do not have litigation in them unless they have the badges of fraud with them, like filing bankruptcy shortly after buying a brand new car, like your case does.

Sounds to me like your worry is that this attorney files a lot of cases. That doesn't make him or her a bad attorney. As a rule I keep my caseload to 10 a month max, but I know lawyers who file 50 cases a month and are fantastic.

Gotta be honest here, if someone who financed a brand new vehicle recently walked into my office there would have to be a pretty good reason to keep me from showing them the door. PAED trustees don't take fraud lightly, and an attorney can get into a lot of trouble if they are considered to be aiding and abetting. I don't take that kind of risk, and I suspect this attorney was just as relieved to see you walk out the door as you were to leave.

[MSbklawyer]

Gotta be honest here, if someone who financed a brand new vehicle recently walked into my office there would have to be a pretty good reason to keep me from showing them the door.

I guess I'm just not as ethical as Jim here is.

But seriously, I have clients fairly regularly who have recently financed vehicles. Often, their new car payment is what pushed them into bankruptcy. Either they bought more car than they could comfortably afford or they could afford it at the time but have had a recent loss of income for whatever reason.

And I'm not at all above telling a client to go buy a new car if they genuinely need one before we file bk. I seen quite a few clients driving 80s vintage, fully-paid-for cars who are being forced into chapter 13 who would qualify for chapter 7 if they only had a car payment. I tell those people to go buy a car before the petition is filed. I advise them to keep the purchase reasonable, of course -- no super expensive sports cars. I've never had a trustee give me any flak at all in those situations.

[laurannm]

I would run far, run fast from this firm

I financed a vehicle about 3-4 months before we filed out of necessity, and quite frankly we had already met with attorneys about a possible BK. It was a $14k car, nothing luxurious by any means. Our trustee never batted an eye over it. I think as long as you make a couple of payments on it before filing you'll be ok

[aces67]

I'd definitely check out some other attorneys. Sounds like the one you saw is ready and willing to take the easiest way out of this.

[mom2three09]

I guess I'm just not as ethical as Jim here is.

But seriously, I have clients fairly regularly who have recently financed vehicles. Often, their new car payment is what pushed them into bankruptcy. Either they bought more car than they could comfortably afford or they could afford it at the time but have had a recent loss of income for whatever reason.

And I'm not at all above telling a client to go buy a new car if they genuinely need one before we file bk. I seen quite a few clients driving 80s vintage, fully-paid-for cars who are being forced into chapter 13 who would qualify for chapter 7 if they only had a car payment. I tell those people to go buy a car before the petition is filed. I advise them to keep the purchase reasonable, of course -- no super expensive sports cars. I've never had a trustee give me any flak at all in those situations.

I agree! Our BK attorney does only BK cases and I'm sure he does way more than 10 per month.. but he was still a great attorney. He also told us that we needed to replace the vehicle we were surrendering with something else because we needed the payment or we could have easily been pushed into a chpt 13. We ended up buying something almost as new as the one we surrendered but for half the cost & payment. Worked out perfectly! And we're due to have our Chpt 7 discharged this week!

[momisery]

I have to agree.. run. Our first experience told us that we would have to do a 13. they simply took our income times 12 ... never talked to us about delaying it if that would help, never told us about expenses and how they work, simply we like to see people go 13 instead of 7 was the reason. After visiting this board I looked again! Hubby makes unemployment and I am not paid big, we have TWO mortages and no renter and medical debt. The first attorney knows there is far more money for a far longer time in a 13. There are times when a 13 fits, but knowing that it brings in more income for the law office I would check around before I decided on one. I even looked at the means test myself and knew that we could go a 7... geesh... No doubt about it, there are people out there without ethics, law degree or no law degree.

[justbroke]

And I'm not at all above telling a client to go buy a new car if they genuinely need one before we file bk.

This is exactly what all the fuss was about when the BAPCPA was enacted in 2005. Many Courts and even attorneys believed that they were "debt relief agencies" and there was a restriction on a debt relief agency from encouraging debtors to incur more debt as part of the counseling.

Thank God that the mess is mostly moot now and is headed to the Supreme Court in the next term! How can a lawyer represent a client when he can't counsel them, with the restricted "free" speech issues in the BAPCPA?

I'm with MSbklawyer on this one.

[MSbklawyer]

This is exactly what all the fuss was about when the BAPCPA was enacted in 2005. Many Courts and even attorneys believed that they were "debt relief agencies" and there was a restriction on a debt relief agency from encouraging debtors to incur more debt as part of the counseling.

Thank God that the mess is mostly moot now and is headed to the Supreme Court in the next term! How can a lawyer represent a client when he can't counsel them, with the restricted "free" speech issues in the BAPCPA?

I'm with MSbklawyer on this one.

For a while, I got around that section by telling my clients that I couldn't advise them to incur new debt because of that statute. I'd go on to tell them that if I could advise them to incur new debt to buy a new car that was needed, then I would do so, but that I couldn't, so I wasn't. Then I would show them how the new debt would help them. Even the dimmest of them caught on and went out and did exactly as I had instructed them that I couldn't instruct them.

Then a lot of lawyers started ignoring the section altogether in an effort to challenge it and get it before a court and I did so as well. To my thinking, there are some serious constitutional issues with prohibiting attorneys from telling their clients to do things that are in all respects legal that would benefit them.

[justbroke]

Well, I'm glad you stood up for attorneys and debtors, just like the Judge in Georgia who really helped get this to the Supremes.

[pcn]

I have seen this discussed frequently. JimKutkowski, why did you comment that this has the appearance of fraud? If it is secured debt that will be reaffirmed, how is that fraud?

MSbkLawyer, I may be confusing two exemption types (ownership vs expenses?), but I remember our atty telling us that we would be able to use the Car Ownership Expense on the means test, even though our 2 vehicles are paid off. Please explain more, and point me back on track, if you can.

[southernbelle]

I would run from this atty and his assistant as fast as you can. They should determine if you are a chapter 7 or 13 based on the information you provide to them and not due to litigation issues. That doesn't sound right. In my search for an atty, I was told many times that I would automatically be a chapter 13 but from the information I gathered on this forum I knew a chapter 7 would be worth trying due to business debts. I didn't give up and finally found a wonderful atty that helped me through the entire process with no major problems.

I would suggest a few more consultations with other attys in your area because this one doesn't seem to be a good fit.

[JimKutkowski]

I have seen this discussed frequently. JimKutkowski, why did you comment that this has the appearance of fraud? If it is secured debt that will be reaffirmed, how is that fraud?

Strike 1: Brand new car, no payment made yet

Strike 2: High income, high debt, wants to fit into Chapter 7, that is a tough needle to thread

Strike 3: Expecting litigation in this case


You're out.


The badges of fraud do not necessarily mean that there is actual fraud, it just means there are things in the filing that must be explained. Also, there is a difference between buying a new Kia to get around town and a new Hummer or Rolls Royce... that was not explained in the post. Usually I advise used cars because they won't take the beating they will on a new car.

Also I'd show them the door because I don't do Chapter 7 very often, and on the above-median cases I refer them to another attorney who does above-median Chapter 7s exclusively and would do a better job on it than a Chapter 13 specialist (not cocky enough to call myself an expert...yet) would do.

Also it seems like there was a bit of an attitude on both sides of the table. Chemistry between client and lawyer is important.


For the record, I'm not accusing this poster of fraud, but you gotta know what it looks like to the trustee, and here the trustee doesn't miss a thing.