Retainer Agreement says Attorney will not appear at 341 Meeting. Is this common?

[ksgirl38]

I am going to file without an attorney for the simple reason that I don't have any assets to protect which would justify paying for an attorney's fees.

However, back in 2010, when I seriously considered filing with an attorney, I attended consultations with several attorneys, and some proposed charging a basic fee plus additional for various services which might be required, while others proposed an "all inclusive" fee. An attorney who is good at his job should know what to expect from a particular case, assuming that the client was honest in all paperwork and disclosures, and should be able to quote a reasonable price accordingly.

If your case is as simple as mine was I can't imagine you'd have any problems. I guess my hangup with an attorney stating the 341 meeting is extra makes me wonder what else they are not including in their fee. It just concerns me that there might be more add on fees later. Seems out of the ordinary from the majority of attorneys I've come across or seen discussed on this forum.

[despritfreya]

If I was going to pay for an attorney, I would expect the attorney to do anything and everything required to successfully complete the case, and to quote a reasonable up-front fee that includes everything. I would not tolerate a situation where the fee agreement is not a contract to pay a specific dollar amount for having the case completed, but rather a list of contingencies where "if this happens then you have to pay X amount". [b]

Oh dear lord. Good thing you plan on representing yourself. I suppose, under your reasoning, that $1,500 to $2,500 charged should cover a 523/727 complaint that, in billable time, can cost tens of thousands of dollars - not to mention the $30k it could cost to appeal.

Our fee agreement is very specific as to what the flat fee DOES NOT include. No way on this planet would I agree to take any case on a flat fee without such limitations. If the client wants us to include everything then we will bill by the hour and require a large retainer paid by a 3rd party since a pre-petition, unearned, retainer would be subject to recovery by the Trustee if it came from the debtor.

For us, and based on an hourly basis, that flat fee of $2,500 would cover just over 6 hours of attny time. Typically, between the two attnys we put in more than 6 hours with a client even before the case is filed: 1 hour free consultation, 1 hour background/records check, up to 3 or 4 hours going over worksheets - even had one that took 7 hours, but I digress -, ½ to 1 hour signing with client after the paralegal types documents, plus who knows how many emails, phone calls and additional meetings with that client before filing. Yup, that flat fee is a real loser for us - good thing it is not all inclusive.

Des.

[159515951]

Other than the 341 meeting, everything is paperwork that most people could figure out on their own. I can't believe attending a hearing integral to the success of getting a bankruptcy approved would be considered additional services.

[sailing2013]

Thank you for all the feedback on this issue. It is greatly appreciated.

Regarding the convenience factor, I'll be filing in SF; and the atty is in SF as well; so its not as if he needs to travel two hours to make the meeting.

He's why I'm torn about hiring him:

Pros:

1) Prefect rating on Avvo, Google, etc. All of his reviews are first rate.
2) He is very responsive. He replies to emails within hours.
3) I am working directly with him; no paralegals, etc.
4) We had an hour consultation, and he has head-and-shoulders better than the other four atty's with whom I've had consultations.

Cons:
1) Not appearing at the 341 sketches me out. Like someone said, what am I paying him then, other than preparing paperwork and legal guidance. I reckon my 341 will go smoothly--as most people's do--but just for the reassurance, it would be nice.

He quoted me $2100 flat, which includes all filing fees, credit reports, etc. And that seems to be a good price for a good atty in SF.

And if I have to pay him $75 to appear at the 341, I reckon I will. But, like I said, it is making me question if I should hire him. Frankly, that is the only red flag.

Thanks again for your help and support. This forum is priceless.

Ciao!

[bcohen]

If the attorney otherwise appears to be good, and responsive to your inquiries, then I'd just go ahead and pay the extra amount to have him appear at your 341 meeting.

[LadyInTheRed]

Thank you for all the feedback on this issue. It is greatly appreciated.

Regarding the convenience factor, I'll be filing in SF; and the atty is in SF as well; so its not as if he needs to travel two hours to make the meeting.

He's why I'm torn about hiring him:

Pros:

1) Prefect rating on Avvo, Google, etc. All of his reviews are first rate.

I wouldn't give to much weight to online ratings.

2) He is very responsive. He replies to emails within hours.
3) I am working directly with him; no paralegals, etc.
4) We had an hour consultation, and he has head-and-shoulders better than the other four atty's with whom I've had consultations.

Sounds good.

Cons:
1) Not appearing at the 341 sketches me out. Like someone said, what am I paying him then, other than preparing paperwork and legal guidance. I reckon my 341 will go smoothly--as most people's do--but just for the reassurance, it would be nice.

He quoted me $2100 flat, which includes all filing fees, credit reports, etc. And that seems to be a good price for a good atty in SF.

And if I have to pay him $75 to appear at the 341, I reckon I will. But, like I said, it is making me question if I should hire him. Frankly, that is the only red flag.

I was going to say I don't think it should be a huge red flag given the pros and that $2175 seems like a good rate in San Francisco (actually, it's good anywhere, even if not the lowest). But, then I decided to see if there is a "no-look" attorney fee for Chap 7 in SF. There isn't, but there are guidelines on what an attorney must include in their pre-petition fee in a Chap 7. Attending the 341 is on the list. Maybe you should ask him about that and see how he responds. Everybody makes mistakes. How they respond when confronted with them can tell you a lot.

[sailing2013]

Thank you, Lady. I always appreciate your insights. One quick follow-up; you wrote:

"I decided to see if there is a "no-look" attorney fee for Chap 7 in SF. There isn't, but there are guidelines on what an attorney must include in their pre-petition fee in a Chap 7. Attending the 341 is on the list."

What is a "no-look"? I'm sorry--but I just don't understand this sentence.

Thank you!

[despritfreya]

A "no look" fee usually applies to Chapter 13 only. It is the maximum "flat fee" that an attny can charge before he/she will have to file fee applications for approval of fees.

Des.

[MSbklawyer]

I'm with Des, I would never send a client to a 341 meeting without an attorney. It's not the trustee that I'm worried about, it's creditors and/or their attorneys. If I can't be there in person, I would have another attorney stand in for me. If that couldn't be arranged, I'd have the meeting set over to the next hearing date.

I realize that customs and practices vary from state to state and district to district, but I think you're being gouged. But that being said, pay the $75 and have your attorney there. It's cheap insurance.

[keepmine]

I'm with Des, I would never send a client to a 341 meeting without an attorney. It's not the trustee that I'm worried about, it's creditors and/or their attorneys. If I can't be there in person, I would have another attorney stand in for me. If that couldn't be arranged, I'd have the meeting set over to the next hearing date.

I realize that customs and practices vary from state to state and district to district, but I think you're being gouged. But that being said, pay the $75 and have your attorney there. It's cheap insurance.

I'd agree. What's another $75 for what is hopefully a once in a lifetime experience.

[keepsmiling]

^what they said.
One atty we spoke to accepted payments as follows: one third upon signing; one third upon filing; one third prior to 341.
She was a former tt. I presume she would not appear at the 341 without payment. Interesting.
At any rate- pay the 75 and move on. Cheap insurance for sure.

[ksgirl38]

For the SF area I would think $2100 is a reasonable price. I am rather surprised he doesn't include the 341 costs as part of that though, but maybe he's so busy he doesn't feel that he has time to go to court. I'd probably ask about this again as someone above suggested. I'm not sure, but being in SF I would probably pay the extra $75. If you were in a smaller city I'd say it probably wouldn't matter, but in a city that large I think it's a different story. Plus it will probably make you feel better in the long run. I'd also ask if it's him that will attend or if that $75 just means he'll send someone else. My attorney sent her partner and although it wasn't a big deal, it did seem rather strange to me. I would have preferred my own attorney just because she knew my case, but there were no issues anyway so it was okay.