Attorney's

[mountanddo]

I have a question regarding attorney's responsiblility when representing you in a BK. I've read a couple of posts where the OP has stated "my attorney said it would be fine" or "my attorney doesn't think it will be a problem". I've also read some posts where different attorney give conflicting advice.

If you do something in good faith on the advice of your attorney and it ends up not being allowed or it negatively affects you does the client have any recourse? Being a consumer when you go to "shop" for attorneys I would think that when you hired a BK attorney that they would have some responsibility to ensure that you don't do anything that would not be allowed or would negatively affect you.

Maybe I'm naive, but if I paid an attorney and they advised me to do something and it cost me money or additional legal issues I would want to be able to have some recourse.

I also get the impression that some attorney's are only your attorney until you file and then in essense you are not represented by them any longer.

I only went for one consultation because my case is pretty simple and straightforward. I just trust the fact that because she calls herself an BK attorney and the firm advertises as a BK firm that they know what they are doing.

So I guess my question is if you do something that your attorney has said that you could do and it turns out you can't what recourse do you have?

[AngelinaCat]

Hi Mountanddo: Boy, have you asked a mouthful, and you may or may not have asked at the right place.

It is my opinion, that the majority of us posting here, came here because were somehow not satisfied with our attorneys in the first place.

That said, look for and read through the posts where the members say that they are satisfied with the attorneys and the advice given, and that will probably give you a better rounded picture.

In our case, we searched for an attorney 'out of town' because we did not want anyone in our town knowing our business. Attorney/client privilege aside, we knew of a group of attorneys that would end their day at 5:00 PM at the local watering hole to 'shoot the breeze'.

We were under a major lawsuit at the time, and 'Hub found this attorney via the Internet in another city. When we talked she seemed 'simpatico' and all that, and we hired her. We started gathering information and filling out forms. While she had 'Sue' as her assistant, questions were answered fairly quickly. We had NOT yet found this site. But when 'Sue' left, and 'Adam' came on board, all communication stopped.

Long story short, we had to go and camp in her office the last business day of the year Dec. 28, 2007, and INSIST very strongly, that she file our petition, or it would not have happened.

You can search on our names and see the back-story, but the short of it is that by 2007, we were fending off a couple of creditor lawsuits--not the Major lawsuit--and if we didn't get the BK filed, we would get a Retirement stipend in January, that would have had us to wait for filing until July 2008. We could not hold off that long.

We hired this attorney in August 2006. Once we got our paperwork in, she should have been ready to file July 1, 2007.

[AngelinaCat]

Well, I must apologize. I did not answer your question. Instead I dumped my dirty laundry. I am so sorry.

However, when we hired our attorney, we understood that she would fill out and file our paperwork. We also expected her to answer our questions when we had them. We warned her up front that we probably would have many questions, but as we were so new to the situation, that we were too ignorant to know what to ask. We were given brochures about bankruptcy to take home and read, while we filled out our paperwork.

So we paid $500.00 to retain her on the spot, August, 2006, and she got a cashier's check for $1500.00 in January 2007, when our stipend came in. We understood that this was fairly basic coverage, and that if there was anything extra, like an Adversary Proceeding--which there was--that would be extra, and very expensive.

I hope that helps some....

[MarkCantaur]

My understanding is that for such a basic price, the attorney is to answer your questions, look over the paperwork you have filled out, after you have checked it to make sure that it is correct and you signed the document, then they file it.

The attorney should go with you to your 341 to assist you if need be, or provide a knowledgeable stand-in, and that should do it. Then you wait until discharge. Anything over and above that should be chargeable. But as Angelina says, they should be available to answer questions.

[Drazil65]

We also went to another city for our attorney for a couple of reasons, first, we live in a very small town, a tourist town and have lots of family and friends here during the year and it would be very easy to hear things through the grapevine (we have lived here 4 1/2 years). The other reason is that we wanted to be in a debtor friendly district or at least one that was known to be anyway. We did our research and found out which districts in this state tend to be more friendly towards the debtor just to make things a little less stressful in the long run.

The attorney we found was our second consult (out of three) and although we met with him in July and did not retain him until Oct. 1st, he has been answering our questions via email (and a couple of quick phone calls when we rec'd a letter about our rental property out of state). We have always dealt with him (sole practice) when we needed detail or advice and his paralegal when its been about the forms. He will go to the 341 with us and has been doing this line of work for 18 years. He is well versed in the process for this state and knows the trustees and Judges that work that district. This was all stuff on our on list and we have a clear (and in writing) understanding of what is included with the fee we paid and what would be extra. We have been very satisfied so far and plan to file in the first 2 weeks of November.

[mountanddo]

Thanks guys! That helps a lot. AC, I do sometimes tend to ramble because all these thoughts are in my head and I can't seem to get them out right on virtual paper

The one question that wasn't answered was Do you have any recourse if your attorney tells you it is ok to do something and the Trustee ends up telling you that you can't. For instance say you used your money to buy something the attorney said was ok before a C-13 and it ended up that wasn't really allowed. I'm assuming that the client *you* is going to end up paying the price for that but does the trustee ever look at the attorney's advice in determining what they will allow? I still am not wording this question correctly but if your attorney advises you to do something and you do it it doesn't seem right that you have to pay the consequenses and the attorney wouldn't have any responsibiltiy for giving you bad or wrong advice. I suppose you'd have to sue the attorney separately if that happened.

[BKAttyMI]

Bankruptcy law in general can be very "fluid" with what Trustee's are trying or attempting to do at the moment. Something a Trustee had no problem with last month might be their focus for this month. An attorney can only tell you how your case "should" pan out and will never make any guarantees on your case, this is standard and is usually spelled out in a fee agreement.

Should an attorney give you "bad" legal advice, you can file a malpractice claim or a grievance.