Do Attorneys Legally Hedge Future Ramifications?

[platter]

In a consultation with most any atty, such as in my case which has been positive by all three that I've consulted with...and of course they must have *all* the info requested after you hire them to review but...

... do you think that in the back of their minds they know what and what could present itself to be an issue in one minor manner or major and they never tell you ahead of time that there could be issues, that they know ahead of time, that the trustee might want more documents, info, or whatever?

1) My DH has a mobile home in his name only that his sister and brother-in-law live in. Not going into detail, he has it in his name only. Atty said it's in his name - not mine - and I'm only filing on me, not him.

The atty in consultation told me it's not a problem, just show the registration or something.

2) Two older cars (in Dh's name, not mine) that were mechanically becoming worthless were taken to salvage. DH received about $150 and signed title over apparently without getting any copy of title being signed over to them.

Atty said it would be listed as 'junk' or 'junked.'

He was nonchalent about it though I figured they'd want proof that those vehicles were actually salvaged.

I'm not hiring him because of his price but I wonder if atty(s) often say something like this, that we'd list them as junk and at the same time in his mind, without telling me, he'd know that the trustee might come back and ask for proof. (Or, when he has my info back from me, then tell me that I need to go to the salvage yard to get some proof.)

Regarding some sheds I have. He said that we probably wouldn't list them. Then in another breath he asked if I was unable to pay the lot rent, would I take them with me? I informed him they weren't attached. Then he said that we'll list them at garage sale value, of course.

**He didn't stop to think that they might be listed on my Property Appraiser paper.** (Only seems that one of three are listed on there though.) He did admit that he'd never dealt with a mobile home with sheds so I'm listing them.



I'm just wondering if they do things like this albeit staying within the legal parameter? Like they don't want to scare you in consultation? Know what I mean? Just wondering.

[debee]

At bottom attorneys are just people and as such can be as incompetent, indifferent, distracted, uninformed, lazy and greedy as anyone. I once had a conversation with an attorney about our case and I brought up 401k loans (that we took out to pay off our credit cards a couple years ago) and he didn't mention that they would complicate our case. I gave him a little time to comment on the risks and he said nothing. Then I brought them up myself and he said, and I quote: Yes, sometimes you can get pushed into a 13, but if that happens we will refund the chapter 7 fee. (and charge the 13 fee in its place!)

Sorry I don't know anything about how a trustee might view your particular case, I only replied to your post because I saw noone else had and I know how stressful this is and how much it helps to find a friendly and welcoming voice here in the forum. I hope someone else comes along who knows more.

[platter]

Thank you for making a deliberate response.

I understand that some are not as competent, etc. as others. But I often wonder if during a consultation that they know that something might necessitate more documentation in the future but they hedge (lack of a better word right now) in bringing it up because they don't want to waste more time during the consult. I can recall at one point when I asked a question that I didn't have on my list I took, can't recall exactly what it was, and he said that we'd cross that later.

I don't think it was anything that crucial that I asked about at that time but it seems to me that in a case like mine where I could very likely do a Chapter 7 myself, I don't think they want to elaborate on some things. He might've intuitly realized that I was asking questions that would very well have helped me to do this myself. Hmmm, you know, he wanted to keep it to a few particulars. I think I was only in there about 30 minutes.

At one point I mentioned that I hope to go into a court in the next week or so and he proceeded to tell me exactly where the building is located behind another and which hall to go down and how many doors. I told him that I already had all the directions, yadda, yadda. I didn't want to waste my consult time even taking five minutes to discuss directions when I told him from the git-go that I had all the pertinent directions. I think, not sure, it was at this point that he mentioned that I could get a paralegal...I just can't recall exactly when in the conversation he made reference to that. (Point is that he might've known that if I went to the court that I was going to learn and might realize that I could do this myself. I don't know...just assuming but something at one point made him say that and he's the atty that has directly come out and said it though he didn't expound on it.)

I guess what I'm asking if basically if some of the people that are in consults (other than me), have found that in the end there were things that the atty could've told them might be a sticky issue for them but they 'purposely' don't mention it until they arrive at that point during the paperwork, etc. Most of these atty(s) know what each item is going to entail ahead of time anyway, I think, if they're experienced. I just think that for some people out there doing BK that they might know there's going to be snags later but they don't bring it up during the person's consult. Then again, I guess the consult is basically to know whether you're going to fall into 7 or 13, not a whole lot more.

[tobee43]

Thank you for making a deliberate response.

I understand that some are not as competent, etc. as others. But I often wonder if during a consultation that they know that something might necessitate more documentation in the future but they hedge (lack of a better word right now) in bringing it up because they don't want to waste more time during the consult. I can recall at one point when I asked a question that I didn't have on my list I took, can't recall exactly what it was, and he said that we'd cross that later.

I don't think it was anything that crucial that I asked about at that time but it seems to me that in a case like mine where I could very likely do a Chapter 7 myself, I don't think they want to elaborate on some things. He might've intuitly realized that I was asking questions that would very well have helped me to do this myself. Hmmm, you know, he wanted to keep it to a few particulars. I think I was only in there about 30 minutes.

At one point I mentioned that I hope to go into a court in the next week or so and he proceeded to tell me exactly where the building is located behind another and which hall to go down and how many doors. I told him that I already had all the directions, yadda, yadda. I didn't want to waste my consult time even taking five minutes to discuss directions when I told him from the git-go that I had all the pertinent directions. I think, not sure, it was at this point that he mentioned that I could get a paralegal...I just can't recall exactly when in the conversation he made reference to that. (Point is that he might've known that if I went to the court that I was going to learn and might realize that I could do this myself. I don't know...just assuming but something at one point made him say that and he's the atty that has directly come out and said it though he didn't expound on it.)

I guess what I'm asking if basically if some of the people that are in consults (other than me), have found that in the end there were things that the atty could've told them might be a sticky issue for them but they 'purposely' don't mention it until they arrive at that point during the paperwork, etc. Most of these atty(s) know what each item is going to entail ahead of time anyway, I think, if they're experienced. I just think that for some people out there doing BK that they might know there's going to be snags later but they don't bring it up during the person's consult. Then again, I guess the consult is basically to know whether you're going to fall into 7 or 13, not a whole lot more.

we most certainly did....

platter...i was just like you...had a few issues i was extremely concerned about...and actually insisted on another 2 meetings about them..i was assured that they were no problem...

right??

they most certainly were issues...however, NOT unresolvable issues...which actually i knew, but wanted to make certain our atty could communicate effectively enough our position...the firm didn't have to....we were. i was placed in direct contact with the trustee's office via the atty providing the information which i had known months before would be needed...so it was in essence...a non issue...although the trustee's office did require (as i thought) more backup documents.

also here in florida we had six interviews...platter i can't tell you how some of the atty's didn't have a clue!!!! just make certain YOU feel as comfortable as possible in an extremely uncomfortable situation with whomever you chose to go with.

we just didn't want another loud mouth know it all...we actually went with the quiet intelligent firm.

[SunshineGal]

Platter, the property in your husband's name alone should not be an issue.

[ccsjoe]

platter,

Most bk attorneys should be familiar enough with the process, trustees, etc, to know offhand at a quick glance what may constitute an issue. Just like any other profession. I'm in finance and a quick look at a balance sheet, without going into detail, may yield some potential red flags with a quick glance. And then there are some "professionals" that are just in it for the money and don't really care to properly represent you and your business.

In your case, the property in your DH's name alone should not be an issue. You might have to show some docs, prove it was only in DH's name, etc, but no real flags.

[platter]

I really don't think that there's anything that's going to be an issue and I think the atty(s) that I've spoken with know that. I had questions that I wanted to ask the last one and not hear him telling me directions to the bldg that the court is held in when I had to cut him off and tell him that I already had all that info. That was 3-5 minutes that we could've spoken about something else and it make me wonder if he did that to slow me down on questions which were possibly beginning to go into a realm where he'd actually be giving me a heads up and make me rethink hiring him and doing it myself.

One Legal Document Center has been in business about 15 years and is a member of the BBB. Like the guy told me, we don't send you home to fill out the forms alone and we'll do them with you here. That's not going to be much different from what the atty is going to do. At another center I think the person said she's been doing this about seven years. This is more than what some of these atty(s) have been doing. One law firm said they started offering it about six months ago as an extra service to clients. Another Document Center has a person there that I also feel comfortable with.

Honestly, I feel very comfortable with the two Document Centers and my gut feeling, with my case, is that I think I can go with them vs an atty. I really do feel comfortable about it and I've cogitated over this quite a bit too.

Actually, I don't think the atty(s) have told me much more than the Centers have told me.

I have just gotten ideas in the back of mind (regardless if hired an atty or not) that they know the case is going to be a breeze or know that there's going to be an glitch but they don't want to address it and take time in a consultation. Guess that's understandable and they contest that they'd have to review all your info first after 'hiring' them. But like anyone that has does enough cases, I think when they talk with a potential client and have X amt of info, they surely have a pretty good idea of where it's going without saying.

[Protected]

The document preparation service sounds like a good option for you, but they can't legally give you advice.