Attorney Fees & Being Superorganized

[anonymuse]

I'm wondering if an attorney might lower his or her fee if you come in with most of the paperwork done and everything they need superorganized?

I've basically been putting together 2 binders of my income and expenses--all paystubs, income taxes, credit card bills, etc.. The big project is all the receipts--getting them organized, categorized, and input in a spreadsheet.

I've got all the info translated into the forms as different tabs in an Excel spreadsheet that mimic the different schedules.

I think I'll be looking more for advice, clarification, and review than starting with a blank slate, handing them all the disorganized paperwork, and saying "just do it'. Does this make a difference when negotiating a fee with the lawyer?

[LostOne0069]

That would completely depend on the attorney. In most cases I would say, "probably not" or even if they did... it wouldn't be much. They'd still need to go over everything that you brought them and go over all of their normal "check lists" to make sure everything was covered... after all, if you made a mistake and he files with that mistake, HE is liable to you for that mistake, thus he (or she!) will still have to spend almost the same amount of time going through your stuff.

I would also guess that if you showed up at an attorneys office with a box full of disorganized materials... he/she would hand you a list of what they wanted and tell you to go organize it and bring it back.

[anonymuse]

I'm a technical writer and data/business analyst--I wish I could do work for the lawyer to work off some of my expenses--but that's just wishful thinking.

[Minnymouth]

Well, if your going to dream - DREAM BIG................

Don't bust your butt organizing paperwork for him, and I sure wouldn't fook with any spreadsheet................

Just bunch the expenses together in catagories, make a list and hand it them.....

Let them earn their money...........it cost enough without doing the work for them...........

[time4cake]

I am incredibly organized. My attorney was impressed with the paperwork I had completed, and even commented that I was probably one of if not his most organized client ever. When he calculated the bill the mumbled to himself "You did a lot of the work for me, hhmmmm...." then spoke up and said "I am going to charge you $2,000 plus filing fee."

Take that for what it is worth.

[edwards2]

We were organized too. I am a fanatic for things put in folders, clipped together, etc. but it did not mean a hill of beans to our attorney. It wouldnt have mattered one way or the other to me though because I am an organized person so I was looking for the lawyer to discount anything. Its worth a try; however, I agree with Minny dont do too much - make him earn his $2k..

[FoolAndHisMoney]

Good move keeping things in order. You won't get a discount from your lawyer unless he is a dear friend, but certainly gather your paperwork and organize it as if you were filing pro se, but don't file pro se. I say this because while you pay your attorney good money it's still your ass if there is a mistake that he caused. If he puts a wrong creditor address, account number or your ss# on the paperwork that can slow things down for you. Double check everything after he prepares it.

[aa06a47]

I doubt they expect you to be anything but super organized. They will type it out in there own computer software and electronic file it more than likely. They won't use your forms. Having the forms filled out won't really help. It might lower the fee, but I doubt it. Good luck.

[Rona123]

Anonymuse, I think it's a great idea to be organized, and I think you're taking the right attitude about what you want out of your meeting with your attorney. But as others have said, it's extremely unlikely you're going to get a discount. Look at it this way -can we expect a discount from our mechanic because we cleaned out our car before taking it in?

IMHO, in your best interest to be as organized as possible, because this is going to make it easier for your attorney to do his/her job, which is to find ways to make your filing go as smoothly as possible and work as much to your advantage as possible. I can guarantee you that no attorney is going to do any more than they have to do to get your filing out the door, and I can't tell you how many attorneys I saw shuffling through files at their client's 341 meeting looking for documents that would have been easy to find had they AND their clients been more organized. The result was a pissed off trustee. Sure, it may not make a difference in the long run, but why take the chance?

You're paying a lot of money to get rid of a TON of debt and in essence, get a new start to your life. Isn't that worth a few hours of organization? It sure was for me.

Ron

[anonymuse]

I was being so organized because I thought I'd file myself. I want to be able to bring those binders to the trustee meeting and flip the tab I need to answer and provide concrete documentation for any question that the trustee may ask of me. I figure that I wouldn't want to tick off any trustee with the paper shuffle.

But now, since I'm going to go through a lawyer, I know that he/she must sign everything for accuracy and truthfulness and it's my butt too on the line. Just cause he/she fills out everything doesn't mean he/she could make a mistake--lawyers are human too. So with my organization, I feel it will be easier for him/her to review my situation and for me to review the paperwork for errors before I sign on the dotted line and file.

I read stuff about people padding expenses here and there, and I have absolutely no reason to do that since my expenses are truly high due to ongoing medical needs compared to my below median income. My only luxury expense if cable TV--that's the only thing I spend on entertainment and where I live, I don't get any reception via antenna. I also read about people trying to put non-exempt property under different categories to keep it exempt. I have 2 TVs so I'll probably lose one since CO exemptions only allow one, but what can they get for the 2nd one? $25 I have some collectibles of great sentimental value that are over $200 (probably near $1000) and I hate to lose them, but that's the law and I'm going to have to deal with that. At least if they take my CD collection, I can make a mp3 collection before I give them up! ;) (That's probably my only sly/unethical move.) Beyond that, I really have nothing of value.

I hated having to go on unemployment; I hated having to go to an indigent care program for medical needs; and I hated the thought of filing for bk. I had trouble getting through the stigma of it all. But I understand that people get into situations beyond their control and sometimes just make bad decisions, but they're good people.

But I still have trouble understanding how someone can have $140K annual income and still qualify for bk since then I think that they're living beyond their means and have to give up maintaining that lifestyle until they're out of debt. Please don't bash me for saying that, but I sure wouldn't mind an explanation of how that's possible.

[aa06a47]

Well, I don't make anywhere near 140K, but I do make what would be a great living (in my opinion). I personnally had a gambling problem (really a mental problem if you truely want to throw it where the shrink puts it) but that aside, it really doesn't matter if you make 40K per year or 140K per year, you are still handed credit like it is candy. The more you make, the more you feel you are bullet proof financially, the more you spend, and you just dig that hole deeper and deeper. If you stay and read on this forum much, you will come to realize people are here for all reasons, self induced and shit happens type of reasons. Some 140K people are here because they lost that 140k a year job or was making 200k per year and took a pay cut. It happens. Just remember, the average person spend 3% more than they make.

[anonymuse]

I understand that gambling can be an addictive/compulsive behavior with a neurophysiological basis.

I'm looking from the 38K perspective (was 55K in high tech then part of a "involuntary resource reduction" along with 700 others and several other companies closing in the area so salaries have gone way down.) To me, 55K was great living, so it's all a matter of individual perspective.

Whether someone was making 200K and now makes 140K or me from 55K - 38.4K, we're both taking a 30% paycut. But I'm still having a hard time seeing them as identical situations.

I guess the theory for me wanting to do bk is getting a fresh start so I can live within my current means--which still means giving up the extras (eating out, concerts) and making better spending decisions so that I can re-accumulate my savings so I have a safety net in case I get hit with unforeseen expenses (i.e. flight for funeral, more medical expenses, etc.)

I think I'm starting to understand why only 35% of Ch 13 repayment plans are successful.

[time4cake]

But I still have trouble understanding how someone can have $140K annual income and still qualify for bk since then I think that they're living beyond their means and have to give up maintaining that lifestyle until they're out of debt. Please don't bash me for saying that, but I sure wouldn't mind an explanation of how that's possible.

I agree, but I don't think your statement goes far enough. If anyone makes over $140,000 annually they should automatically be defined as a "Bankruptcy Abuser." As an "Abuser" making over $140K annually, you should be forced to live at poverty level until your debts are paid off.

In my plan I would take away the "Abuser's" free time away as well. They should spend every waking moment either working to pay back their creditors, or sitting in a dark windowless room contemplating what bad people they are for abusing the system.

And, I don't think it would be unreasonable for the "Bankruptcy Abuser" to have an identifying mark or symbol so that us non-abusers could recognize them.

If they happen to have children, those children should be put placed with social services, and be taught sound financial advice. This education would continue until the "Bankruptcy Abuser" paid back their creditors. Once they paid back their creditors the "Abuser" would be allowed to have supervised visitation with their former children.

Now, the following idea might be extreme, but I think it is well grounded in logic. I think people who make over $140,000 annually, that file bankruptcy, should also be limited in the number of words they are allowed to use. Now we might have to debate this, but I think 2,000 spoken words a day should be sufficient. With fewer spoken words the "Bankruptcy Abuser" would be less likely to get themselves in future financial trouble.

That is my plan, and I would only like to add that thankfully I only make $139,999 annually.

[Rona123]

Cake,

I'm not sure if your comments were mostly tongue-in-cheek, but they definitely speak to what seems to be a common lack of empathy for high-income filers. While it's natural to not understand how someone who makes more than us can end up in the same boat, to automatically call a person who files BK with an income of $140k a "Bankruptcy Abuser" is unfair. In my opinion, my filing BK with an income of $50k is no different than someone else filing with an income 3 times that. The common denominator is that we were both living outside of our means. The fact that in the eyes of those who make less, that the $140k person was probably benefiting more doesn't make them any more of an abuser than you or I.

Just like most of the rest of us, that $140k person had gotten used to a certain level of lifestyle, and pushed the envelope. This, of course, doesn't take into account tragedies, illnesses, layoffs, etc... but speaks to the reality that for most of us, poor financial decision-making played at least a small part in getting us where we are. To arbitrarily punish high-income filers just because they're high income doesn't seem right, even if we can't personally understand how someone who makes that much money could ever have financial problems.

Just my thoughts...

[SinkingFast]

I think Time was just having a little fun. He's been tacked to the wall before because he makes more than most of us. So I see his comments as tongue-in-cheek. Generally speaking, Time does have a very dry sense of humor. He kinda reminds me of a Chemistry professor I had in college.

Our last day of class before finals, many of the students did not show up. I was sorely in need of review from the first part of the semester so I went. We didn't get a review. We were taught a lesson in how to make Martini's. Being younger scientists moving into the field, we should at least know how to properly make the preferred drink of our elders when we would happen to mix and mingle at social functions. The whole lecture was a riot. Very dry humor of course. But one of the best college classes I ever had and have as a treasured memory for life.

Just a word of caution to you Anon,......... From personal experience.

Don't come acrossed as pushy. For some reason, most attnys do not like for us regular folk to step over the line into their inner sanctum. They have to feel superior to us for some reason. I made the mistake of mentioning PACER to one attny and never heard back from that one. So be careful in your approach.