Attorney Fees

Under the bankruptcy court’s no-look fee standing order, debtor’s counsel could not obtain reimbursement for advancing pre-petition costs including filing fees and credit counseling, but the court had discretion to allow those expenses as part of counsel’s compensation. McBride v. Riley (In re Riley), No. 18-30535 (5th Cir. May 13, 2019).

Under its “no money down” fee agreement, the McBride Law Firm advanced the chapter 13 debtor’s filing fees, credit counseling, and the cost of obtaining credit reports. McBride later sought to recover the advance along with its regular fees under the bankruptcy court’s no-look fee standing order. The bankruptcy court found that the attorney fees were limited to those fees specified in the standing order, and it further held that it had no authority to award additional fees or reimbursements. At the same time, the bankruptcy court denied reimbursement of pre-petition expenses in eighteen other cases in the district. McBride and the attorneys from two of the other cases appealed to the district court. That court affirmed.

On appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the bankruptcy court’s position was represented by two chapter 13 trustees who reiterated the reasoning of the bankruptcy court. At the request of the circuit court, the UST also weighed in and supported the bankruptcy court.

On appeal, McBride argued that the expenses were reimbursable under section 503. Specifically, section 503(b)(1), which permits payment of expenses necessary to preserve the estate, or section 503(b)(2), which, in conjunction with section 330(a)(4)(B), permits an award of “reasonable compensation” for attorneys based on services rendered. In finding that McBride was not entitled to reimbursement, the bankruptcy court relied on its February, 2017, standing order permitting the bankruptcy court to award attorney’s fees up to a specified amount without the necessity of the attorney filing an itemized fee application. Prior to February, 2017, the court’s standing order provided that pre-petition expenses were not reimbursable separately from the no-look fee amount. The February, 2017, order removed the language relating to reimbursement of expenses with one exception: the order specifically allowed the cost of postage for service of a motion to modify to be added to the no-look fee.

The Fifth Circuit began with McBride’s argument that, by its silence on the subject, the new no-look fee standing order permits reimbursement of pre-petition expenses. The court disagreed. It held that where the purpose of the standing order was to simplify payment of attorney’s fees, it was reasonable to conclude that silence on a given expense meant that expense was not covered by the order. This conclusion was further supported by language in the standing order that counsel seeking fees or expenses beyond those allowed in the no-look fee order must file an itemized fee application.

The court next rejected McBride’s argument that the expenses were reimbursable under sections 503(a) and (b)(1)(A) as necessary to the preservation of the estate, finding that neither of the two prerequisites were met. First, the expenses were not post-petition transactions with the bankruptcy estate, but were personal debts incurred by the debtor pre-petition. Second, the expenses were incurred as an administrative requirement belonging to the debtor. Payment of the pre-petition fees did not benefit or add value to the estate.

The court turned to the bankruptcy court’s finding that, under sections 503(b) and 330(a)(4)(B), debtor’s counsel may be compensated only for services, and that “all bankruptcy courts lack the discretion to ever award debtor’s counsel compensation that includes reimbursement for advancing the costs of those three fees.” The circuit court rejected the notion that the definition of “compensation” could never encompass “reimbursement.” It found the permissive language in section 330(a)(4)(B), that the court may award compensation for reasonable and necessary expenses, is broad enough to encompass reimbursement. The court was unpersuaded by the bankruptcy court’s reasoning that permitting reimbursement of expenses owed by the debtor as the price of entering the world of bankruptcy, would necessarily diminish the funds available to pay other creditors. While that reasoning may have been relevant to the determination that the expenses were not administrative costs necessary to the preservation of the estate under section 503(b), it was not relevant to consideration of whether counsel’s advance of those fees was in the best interest of the debtor and reimbursable as part of counsel’s compensation under section 330(a)(4)(B). Emphasizing the discretionary nature of section 330(a)(4)(B), the court noted that permitting a court to award reimbursement of pre-petition expenses would not eviscerate Rule 1006’s provision for payment of filing fees through an installment plan.

In sum, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the bankruptcy court’s holding that the no-look fee standing order does not permit additional fees for reimbursement of pre-petition expenses, and that advancing those fees does not fall under administrative expenses necessary to preservation of the bankruptcy estate under section 503(a). However, the court vacated the bankruptcy court’s holding that bankruptcy courts lack all discretion to award reimbursement of those expenses as part of counsel’s compensation under section 330(a)(4)(B).

McBride 5th Cir May 2019

A Utah bankruptcy court upheld a chapter 7 debtor’s attorney’s bifurcated fee agreement in the face of a motion for sanctions by the U.S. Trustee. In re Hazlett, No. 16-30360 (Bankr. D. Utah Apr. 10, 2019).

Attorney Russell B. Weekes, of Capstone Law, entered into a fee agreement with the chapter 7 debtor, Brett Hazlett, under which Mr. Hazlett would pay no retainer fee, but would pay post-petition costs and expenses in the amount of $2,400 in ten monthly installments. Capstone had an arrangement with BK Billing, under which BK Billing would buy the account from Capstone for $1,800 and collect the fee payments from Mr. Hazlett. Mr. Weekes explained that arrangement to Mr. Hazlett. Mr. Weekes filed all the necessary bankruptcy papers and Mr. Hazlett received his chapter 7 discharge without complications in March of 2017.

In September, 2017, the U.S. Trustee reopened the case and moved for sanctions based on the fee agreement. Specifically, the UST challenged: “(1) the marketing of Zero-Down Chapter 7 bankruptcy services; (2) the bifurcation of bankruptcy services into pre-petition and post-petition fee agreements; (3) filing the petition and the Initial Bankruptcy Papers for purportedly no charge; (4) the reasonableness of the $2,400 post-petition fee; (5) the use of BK Billing to factor and collect the fee; and (6) the propriety of utilizing electronic signatures in bankruptcy.”

In its preliminary discussion, the court noted several factors contributing to the problem of fees for chapter 7 representation, not least of which is the fact that chapter 7 debtors tend not to have the funds to pay a retainer. Adding to the difficulty, the Supreme Court held in Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526 (2004), that a chapter 7 debtor’s attorney cannot be paid out of estate funds and that any fee still owed at the time of the petition is dischargeable along with other debts. The court reviewed the various, less-than-optimal, choices chapter 7 debtors have, beginning with the pro se route (or use of petition-preparers who often overcharge and underperform), which typically results in needlessly complicated chapter 7 cases and a low discharge rate of 70%.

In the absence of established law in the district on the topic of bifurcated fee agreements, the court found guidance in an ethics opinion issued by the Utah State Bar which emphasized that any such agreement must be for post-petition service, must be entered into after full disclosure and evidence of an understanding on the part of the debtor, and must be permissible under bankruptcy law.

The court found that Capstone’s fee agreement procedures—which included verbal explanation of the ramifications of all the payment options; extensive documents to be signed by the client laying out the disclosures, warnings and explanations; a general information document requiring the client’s initials on each paragraph; and more—satisfied the requirements of full disclosure and informed consent.

The court turned next to whether such agreements are permissible in bankruptcy. Section 329 requires that fees be reasonable, and Rule 2016(b) imposes disclosure requirements on attorneys. Evidence of compliance with both requirements must be presented to the court in the Form B2030 Disclosure of Compensation. The court found that bifurcated fee agreements are not per se prohibited and set forth the following “prime directives” for their use:

1. The agreement must be in the debtor’s best interest.
2. All fees must be reasonable and necessary. Where the attorney charges more for the post-petition agreement, he or she must justify the increased fee other than by work performed pre-petition.
3. The fee arrangement must be revealed in Form B2030 within fourteen days of the petition.
4. If the debtor opts to proceed pro se or with different counsel, the attorney must comply with the Local Rule pertaining to withdrawal or substitution of counsel.

The court acknowledged that Local Rule 2091-1 essentially requires a lawyer to complete all aspects of a bankruptcy case, but noted that in this case, the attorney fee agreement contemplated just that; Mr. Weekes was obligated under the agreement to complete the bankruptcy case unless the debtor opted to proceed pro se or hire new counsel.

Finding that Mr. Weekes’s fees were reasonable and necessary, the court went on to examine Capstone’s use of BK Billing for collection of payments. The court expressed concern about the use of such services due to systemic issues of overcharging debtors and creating a conflict of interest for the debtor’s attorney between the debtor and the collector. It noted, however, that the Utah Ethics Opinion found that such arrangements were permissible so long as all the requirements of full disclosure, informed consent, and reasonable fees were met. The court found that to be the case here.

The same was true for Capstone’s use of electronic signatures for some of the documents Mr. Hazlett signed. Though Local Rule 5005-2(e), which pertains to documents an attorney must retain, refers to “original signatures,” various rules and statutes in Utah sanction the use of electronic signatures, and it was therefore not unreasonable for Capstone to use e-signatures. Moreover, from a practical standpoint, the court noted that it is not always feasible to obtain wet signatures when financial pressures require immediate action.

The court concluded that Mr. Weekes provided valuable and ultimately successful services to Mr. Hazlett, that the terms of the fee agreement were fully disclosed, that the fee itself was reasonable and necessary and that, for all these reasons, sanctions were not warranted.

Hazlett Opinion Bankr Utah April 2019