Is there legally anything you shouldn't do after you talk to a BK lawyer?

[slvnomore]

Is there legally anything you shouldn't do after you talk to a BK lawyer?

I am considering possibly talking to a Debt settlement or BK lawyer. Does that burn any bridges legally that you can't do after you talk to one?

For instance, use your credit cards after as you already talked to someone about BK.

Anything else?

Forgive me not knowing, just trying to position myself favorably and be aware of any options i am losing if i go that route.

Thank you so much!

[bcohen]

Officially, you should not continue to use your credit cards--and definitely should not apply for any other loan products--once you have decided that bankruptcy is imminent. Of course, most people continue using their credit cards for normal household expenditures--such as groceries and gasoline--up until the date of filing, and creditors don't typically object to these kind of charges.

Talking to a bankruptcy attorney does not affect your ability to negotiate settlement with your creditor(s)--either on your own, or using the services of a debt negotiating firm. Please note that settling is rarely a useful option, and that most debt negotiating firms are scam artists, and those which are not provide nothing you can't do yourself.

[tobee43]

no, it burns no bridges.

from the out come of your privileged meeting with an atty, you can do whatever you like. you may decide NOT to file BK so then you can continue to use your cc's freely. or, you may decide it's not the right thing to do right now, but may be the right thing to do in a year or two down the road, so you can use what ever you want at that point. it's ONLY after you have retained an atty for the BK you will be advised to stop using your CC usually the 90 day rule is mentioned...although common sense most likely says you should stop the use of them now.

i would never suggest a debt settlement co., they are such crooks. believe me, they put so much money in their pockets it will turn your stomach. since you haven't really given an outright status of your debts, if this is only pertaining to one debt, then maybe you can work directly with the creditor as opposed to either option you posed.

best of luck.

[HHM]

First, I would'nt waste time with debt settlement companies. Here is an easy way to figure out if debt settlement might work for you. Add up all your debt, e.g. $60,000. Multiply by 40%. $24,000. Can you raise that money in 3 months or less...FROM NON EXEMPT ASSETS. If no, debt settlement is not for you? If you do not understand what an exempt or non-exempt asset is, do a search of this forum, and talk to a BK attorney FIRST.

As has been pointed out, there are no inherent legal prohibitions after meeting with a BK lawyer. But in general, you should stop using your credit cards.

The fact that you met with an attorney can be used against you. For example, let's say you met with a BK attorney on Feb 1. On Feb 14, you fly to Vegas, blow $10K on credit cards, and wait 6 months to file BK. August 14. When the creditor attorney shows up at the 341 meeting, one of the standard question is, "when did you first meet with an attorney to discuss bankruptcy."

Also, a side note on privilege and confidentiality in the BK context. First, privilege is a rule of evidence, all it means is that the confidential communications between an attorney and client can be prevented from being revealed at trial (by the attorney) unless the court compels disclosure. The rub in bankruptcy is that pretty much everything discussed is not really "confidential". To be truly confidential, no one else can know the fact disclosed. I am hard pressed to think of some financial fact of a persons life that meets that standard. Now, that doesn't mean the attorney can willy-nilly disclose information, they still must keep the content of the meeting private, but rarely would anything discussed in a bankruptcy context rise to the level of privilege. Also, since BK is civil and not criminal, an attorney cannot aid a debtor in perpetrating a fraud and with the new rules that came out as part of the 2005 BK amendments, an attorney cannot fail to disclose information. For example, if on the eve of filing bankruptcy (everything is ready to go, just waiting for the ink to dry on the signature) the debtor reveals to the attorney that she owns a home in Canada worth $350,000 free and clear, that is a huge problem. The attorney must first counsel the client to disclose the information on the petition. If the client refuses, the attorney must withdraw representation. That attorney cannot file a petition knowing it to be incomplete, inaccurate, or false. Now, if the debtor later files BK, the attorney does not have a duty to reveal the existence of the house, but if called to testify, the court could compel the attorney to testify.

Don't let all that frighten you, but I thought I would provide some insight on how it really works.

[tobee43]

hhm, i can't see if someone meets with an BK atty and he/she advises, i.e. try to refi your mortgage, as opposed to filing bk, here let me refer you to someone that may be able to help you; as opposed to filing BK. (a true story). four years later, the family's head of house hold lost their job and then, filed for BK, with a different atty, (the first one certainly did help them get a refi at about 8% with closing costs that were exceeding 20k). this couple used their charged card for those four years, so what you are saying is that looking back after those four years ago, that would be considered when they first met with an atty?

i find that difficult to believe that just going in for a consult that may lead one in a different direction would could be used against one in the future if they decided to file years down the road, or even months down the road. the entire reasoning behind the consult was what are one's options about filing for bk. if there may have been other options at the time they weren't and didn't file at the time.

i also have to chuckle a bit at the suggestion of the trustee asking when you first met with your atty. that is, unless there were some complications or some real questions about the petition itself. i think i sat through at least 50 341's and frankly, i never heard that question asked. (although, i'm certain if one sits long enough, they could just about any question asked, i'm just saying i don't think it's a standard question, as we can see by the many of those on this forum on their experiences on what they were asked at their 341s).

[HHM]

tobee43

The issue relates to a creditor objection to discharge under 523(a)(2). Keep in mind, the "when did you meet with attorney" fact is one of several facts in an overall case. The main way you prove fraud is to show that the debtor knew, or should have known, they were insolvent with no reasonable way to anticipate paying back the debt at the time they incurred the debt. So, if a debtor is meeting with a BK attorney, that is circumstantially relevant (not decisive, but relevant) to that inquiry. Also, keep in mind, that question leads to the additional questions of
1. At the time you met with the attorney, what was your income
2. How much debt
3. Expenses, etc etc.
Note, in examining the debtor, you never ask "why", you simply gather all the surrounding facts and attempt to show that the debtor knew they were in financial trouble, and therefore could not have reasonably believed that they could pay back the debt. Note, this really only comes up for major charges made within 3-12 months of the BK filing date.

The trustee is not the one who asks the question, it would be the creditor attorney who is objecting. And creditors objecting to debt is rare.

Now, for day to day, run of the mill expense, this issue would not arise no one is going to flag the account. But the issue does arise for major charges that occur outside the 90 presumption period.

What I am explaining is nothing most debtors need worry about, but probably interesting to some people (hopefully)
Each case is different, under the facts you described above, if the couple were able to hold on for 4 years, presumably, they were making payments, so there wasn't substantial harm.

[slvnomore]

You guys are amazing... I never new such a simple question would have such a complicated answer. I really appreciate your clarity
and explaining it so I can understand it. So what I hear is that I should not meet with a BK 7 att unless I am ready to file BK 7 in the next 90 days or so. Is that correct?

[HHM]

You guys are amazing... I never new such a simple question would have such a complicated answer. I really appreciate your clarity
and explaining it so I can understand it. So what I hear is that I should not meet with a BK 7 att unless I am ready to file BK 7 in the next 90 days or so. Is that correct?

No, that is not what we are saying.

Go meet with an attorney now, get clarity on your options and take the first steps to SOLVE your financial challenges. Do not get stuck in analysis paralysis.

We are basically having an academic discussion of the 1//10,000 case.

[slvnomore]

I misunderstood. Thank you for your thoughtful advice. I appreciate it. How can a find a stellar BK7 att in chicago. And what questions should I ask to find a good one? This would be and no asset bk7, if i decide to go that way.

[tobee43]

tobee43

The issue relates to a creditor objection to discharge under 523(a)(2). Keep in mind, the "when did you meet with attorney" fact is one of several facts in an overall case. The main way you prove fraud is to show that the debtor knew, or should have known, they were insolvent with no reasonable way to anticipate paying back the debt at the time they incurred the debt. So, if a debtor is meeting with a BK attorney, that is circumstantially relevant (not decisive, but relevant) to that inquiry. Also, keep in mind, that question leads to the additional questions of
1. At the time you met with the attorney, what was your income
2. How much debt
3. Expenses, etc etc.
Note, in examining the debtor, you never ask "why", you simply gather all the surrounding facts and attempt to show that the debtor knew they were in financial trouble, and therefore could not have reasonably believed that they could pay back the debt. Note, this really only comes up for major charges made within 3-12 months of the BK filing date.

The trustee is not the one who asks the question, it would be the creditor attorney who is objecting. And creditors objecting to debt is rare.

Now, for day to day, run of the mill expense, this issue would not arise no one is going to flag the account. But the issue does arise for major charges that occur outside the 90 presumption period.

What I am explaining is nothing most debtors need worry about, but probably interesting to some people (hopefully)
Each case is different, under the facts you described above, if the couple were able to hold on for 4 years, presumably, they were making payments, so there wasn't substantial harm.

it's very interesting hhm. really. you're correct, each is different. i would or could see the question being brought up at an AP. i can also see some questions about large amounts that exceed or may not have been within that 90 day period. i know here in florida i was surprised to see that really didn't want to know anything outside those guidelines, whereas, i have also seen on this forum that it did become an issue or at the least questionable.

[tobee43]

No, that is not what we are saying.

Go meet with an attorney now, get clarity on your options and take the first steps to SOLVE your financial challenges. Do not get stuck in analysis paralysis.

We are basically having an academic discussion of the 1//10,000 case.

hhm i love that! an

alysis paralysis.

OP, exactly, and, i apologize for going off a bit! i agree, it's really time to meet with your atty. best of luck!

[Pjmax]

I agree with the others, forget the debt settlement companies; or, go ahead and research and 'talk' to one or two (don't commit), and you will confirm what has been said here.

Make several 'free consultation' appointments with BK attorneys. Type out a basic list of your circumstances, it makes the appontments go smoother and you are not likely to forget something. It doesn't have to be detailed or exact, just enough to communicate your situation. If you have questions now, write those down too. Find an attorney that you feel comfortable with. If you get information that conflicts with what you have read here, ask why. You can always come back here for more advice before making a decision and retaining. Everyone's situation is different, and every BK district seems to be different. Planning is needed, but you have to take the first step to get the information you need to plan correctly.

[slvnomore]

Thank you for your wise advice. I do get stuck in analysis paralysis. ; )

[Pizza]

I would just like to second (or third) the 'analysis paralysis' phrase... very clever! I love it!