Do Pro SE filers have more problems with US Trustee?

[nomore$$]

As I read a lot of the posts in this forum and others, it always seems that most people having objections filed by the US Trustee have filed without an attorney.
Do Pro SE filers have this happen more often or does it happen a lot to filers represented by an attorney and they just don't post here?

[StaciMM]

I filed pro se (old law) and had no trouble w/ the trustee.

Just wanted to add-I was worried about this also ahead of time. The only you count on, I think, is that each trustee will do things differently. At my 341, the married people who filed alone & owned houses got the most attention. (One was going thru a divorce, had some extra equity in the house, and I think the trustee was going to followup with the spouse's divorce attorney.)

[bkfiler]

yes pro se filers have more problems with the trustee, us trustee and creditors with respect to the fact that they do not know how to defend themselves nearly as well.

it doesnt mean that you are targeted right of the bat or every time. that is not the case. but it does mean they are more likey to pursue something they want becuase they know you are not represented.

the bigger problem then this in my mind is that they know you cant do battle very well compared to an attorney. so they figure you will give in and give more then they would have gotten thru an attorney and that you dont know the laws well at all so the whole process scares you into giving them what they want.

i think its unfair. but welcome to life.

[StaciMM]

Sometimes I hate to admit it, LOL, but BKfiler has a great point there. With that in mind, I'd like to add that even though I filed pro se I had NO assets that would have been a concern. Since we didn't own a home, we had access to using 1/2 our homestead as a wild card and didn't really even need it. So, I challenge the trustee to find some long lost inheritance, 'cause I would get a chunk of it before the trustee. Well, guess I'd have to share w/ DH...

Anyhow, if there is even a remote possibility of an asset on the line, filing pro se could end up costing more than it saves.

[coma]

In my case yes. I consulted an attorney after the UST filed to dismiss or convert, and she said that someone was brought in b/c HI didn't have much fraud, so they were looking, so filers wil more than 50k debt, more than 5k income, and pro se, were on the radar...and that was us to a T...

[StaciMM]

Coma-

Kind of like a teacher who has too many A's and not enough lower grades.

[coma]

Coma-

Kind of like a teacher who has too many A's and not enough lower grades.

Exactly...

[Teri]

We were high income, owned a house -- filed pro se
no problems other than having to give up our 2005 tax return (% of it is big enough - she wants us to send her the return and then she will let us know - this was signed off by the judge)

[down @ out]

Pro se filers

Not sure the issue is pro-se filers being singled out. Believe it is more related to simply doing your homework before you go in whether you have an attorney or not.

Don`t mean to beat a dead horse but one should always assume you are filing pro-se whether you use an attorney or not. Trusting anyone in this process is a bit nuts. If you don`t understand what your attorney is doing you are setting yourself up for failure.

I filed pro-se, under the old laws and didn`t have any problem. In an out in 5 minutes. Having said that I probably spent a solid 200 hours researching bankruptcy, attending 341 hearings, and reading anything I could get my hands on.

I have to say the attorney`s I saw that day were generally worthless and really were messing up right and left. I am sure there are good ones out there but how do you know who is good and who is bad unless you do your homework?

Have to say I don`t know if I would attempt a pro-se filing with the new laws. Understand one thing the only person you can trust is yourself in this process, and if an attorney, trustee, or creditor nails you it is only your fault.

Good luck

[StaciMM]

I've tried to express the same thought a few times, just think how you put it gets the point across pretty well.

Don't assume someone else knows what they are doing. Especially when they have many, many cases to deal with and you only have one: yours.

Don`t mean to beat a dead horse but one should always assume you are filing pro-se whether you use an attorney or not. Trusting anyone in this process is a bit nuts. If you don`t understand what your attorney is doing you are setting yourself up for failure.

[robivi3]

In my case the Trustee's lawyer and mine were ready to spar. There was some animosity between the trustees Attorney and my Attorney from previous cases. I had Ben Cartwright vs. The Terminator. He (Trustees Attorney) was viscious to the end, the kind of guy you want in a slip and fall case.

There are alot of factors in every case. My Attorney new the judge well from school, new the Trustee. My Trustee was educated under the English System and was from India. His view of debtors reflected this. He is highly educated and his wife is the top Anasthesiologist in our County, bar none. By the time it was over I had alot of anymosity and respect for the Trustee in my case.

I can tell you from another case that i was in in probate that a Judge does not like to be approached without an Attorney representing, as the judge told the other party in my case "NEVER approach me without an Attorney". I imagine the Trustee feels the same way. I don't know if it is a "territory" issue or what but I do agree that the Trustee and Judge will tend toward prejiduce if you are without an Attorney. They regard it as an issue of respect toward the Court. In a sure "no asset" case, to hell with it, if you can save money, go woithout. However, you will be redoing some things. But if you have any assets and attempt to walk in without an Attorney they are going to ride you like a Harley on a bad road.

[coma]

I did my homework...the reading and research, and the 341 was a breeze, no asset and all. No expense was out of line, but we were the victims of the system here, a system that was looking for non-existant fraud, and our lack of representation made us an easy target.

[FoolAndHisMoney]

Not sure the issue is pro-se filers being singled out. Believe it is more related to simply doing your homework before you go in whether you have an attorney or not.

Don`t mean to beat a dead horse but one should always assume you are filing pro-se whether you use an attorney or not. Trusting anyone in this process is a bit nuts. If you don`t understand what your attorney is doing you are setting yourself up for failure.

I filed pro-se, under the old laws and didn`t have any problem. In an out in 5 minutes. Having said that I probably spent a solid 200 hours researching bankruptcy, attending 341 hearings, and reading anything I could get my hands on.

I have to say the attorney`s I saw that day were generally worthless and really were messing up right and left. I am sure there are good ones out there but how do you know who is good and who is bad unless you do your homework?

Have to say I don`t know if I would attempt a pro-se filing with the new laws. Understand one thing the only person you can trust is yourself in this process, and if an attorney, trustee, or creditor nails you it is only your fault.

Good luck

I think that if you use an attorney you should still act like you filed without one and double or triple check everything. I think most people just hire the attorney, give them the information, go home, wait for the 341 and get unpleasent surprises awaiting them. The people that research the process and come here (except for the mean people) are much smarter and more prepared then those that just rely on the attorney.

[robivi3]

Fooland... that was perfectly stated. Alot of people assume that BK includes the extras, it doesn't. Just like any purchase, due diligence is necessary. You are not paying your Attorney to research you property, income and all the little items. His job, unless agreed otherwise, is straight BK.

[Minnymouth]

A little input from me,

You hire an attorney for his expertise in bankruptcy laws and issues........ THAT'S WHAT YOU EXPECT AND PAY FOR!! You pay for his opinion, his advice on options available to you, and for him to prepare your petition.

Thankfully, the new laws NOW hold an attorney accountable for his actions. Many attorneys (like mine), never even "looked" at the petition.... he just had his girl type it up and he signed it, she filed it!!!!

Needless to say, his "lack" of knowledge concerning my bankruptcy petition caused me to loose my home in Chapter 7. This should have never happened.

You hire an attorney to represent you to the "best" of his ability and in the best interest of his client!!!

When they take your money - do ABSOLUTELY nothing - create a problem - and then run..... THEY SHOULD BE PENALIZED!!!

I would say "many an attorney" has caused a client to loose everything they own because of poor representation in a bankruptcy case..... AND ITS TIME THEY WERE HELD ACCOUNTABLE....

Tickled me to death to see this writtin into law..................

The actions of my attorney caused me to loose my home in bankruptcy and for it to be auctioned off. Had my attorney been "doing his job" it would have never happened. Even the Trustee and Auctioneer at the auction made the statement that "I could blame my attorney for this auction"!!

So YES, by all means, keep a close eye on your attorney and what he does..... shame, many of us had to learn this from experience the hard way....