In Re Pereira Santiago

457 B.R. 172, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3368, 2011 WL 4056700
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
DecidedMay 2, 2011
Docket13-10733
StatusPublished

This text of 457 B.R. 172 (In Re Pereira Santiago) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re Pereira Santiago, 457 B.R. 172, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3368, 2011 WL 4056700 (prb 2011).

Opinion

OPINION AND ORDER

ENRIQUE S. LAMOUTTE, Chief Judge.

This case is before the court upon the Chapter 13 trustee’s request to rule on whether or not an attorney filing a bankruptcy petition must meet with the individual prospective debtor before filing the petition and whether the prepetition interview is necessary to establish an attorney-client relationship. The relevant facts are not in controversy and the attorney for the debtor agrees with the trustee’s position that a face to face meeting between the attorney and the client before filing the petition is necessary. The attorney before the court has expressly informed that his office practice has been modified to comply with the requirement of personally meeting with the client before filing the petition. The ultimate issue pending is the court’s imprimatur of what is the conduct expected of attorneys appearing before it.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 31, 2011 the debtor filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 13 of the *174 Bankruptcy Code. The court scheduled the 341 meeting of creditors for March 8, 2011. The presiding officer at the 341 meeting of creditors questioned the debtor as to whether she had been interviewed by her attorney prior to filing the bankruptcy petition. The debtor answered that she had been legally advised in person by her attorney on February 11, 2011, that is, after the filing of the petition but before the 341 meeting of creditors. The presiding officer noted that there had not been legal advice prior to filing and informed the attorney of the trustee’s position that there should be a face to face meeting between the attorney and the client prior to filing the bankruptcy petition.

On March 21, 2011 the debtor’s attorney filed an informative motion accepting with professional candor that “prior to March 8, 2011 during the process before the filing of the petition the process was not done solely by me.” The attorney informed on his office procedures, which always included a personal interview before the 341 meeting of creditors but in some cases there was not a personal interview before filing the bankruptcy petition as this was done by his “personally trained and daily supervised paralegal.” The critical intervention of paralegals, particularly for solo practitioners, was detailed. The attorney informs that all cases were personally reviewed by him prior to filing.

The Chapter 13 trustee stated his position on the debtor’s attorney’s informative motion. The trustee highlights several guidelines in the Consumer Bankruptcy Law and Practice Manual which tend to support the office practices conducted by the debtor’s attorney in this case. The trustee does not subscribe to practices which, albeit economically efficient, accept supervision by the attorney of work performed by non-attorney legal employees for which the attorney is ultimately responsible, as a substitute to a face to face interview with the client prior to filing the bankruptcy petition. The trustee states that in order to provide competent advice, as required by Rule 1.1 of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct 1 , an interview with the client should be held as a precondition to establishing an attorney-client relationship. Two recent cases are cited in support of the trustee’s position: In re Tran, 447 B.R. 268 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) and In re Harps, 2011 WL 309059 (Bankr.S.D.Ill. Jan. 28, 2011).

The attorney replied distinguishing the decisions in In re Tran and In re Harps to the facts of this case. The attorney further states that the face to face interview should not be required prior to the client submitting all the documentation necessary to filing the bankruptcy petition.

DISCUSSION

The legal profession is largely self-governing. See Preamble to Model Rules. Such autonomy carries special responsibilities. However, ultimate authority over the legal profession is vested upon the courts. Courts have a duty to uphold and enhance the image of justice. Such authority and responsibility are the basis for the court’s inherent power to oversee the conduct of attorneys appearing before them. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-45, 111 S.Ct. 2123, 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991); In re Nguyen, 447 B.R. 268, 280 (9th Cir. BAP 2011). The enforcement of ethics is necessary to preserve the deco *175 rum of the court and the respectability of the legal profession. Ex parte Burr, 22 U.S. 529, 9 Wheat. 529, 530, 6 L.Ed. 152 (1824).

Consumer bankruptcies generally involve debtors whose estates are small. Thus, the economics of handling the same is critical to providing access to the benefits afforded by the Bankruptcy Code. The use of paralegals is an essential element to providing cost efficient bankruptcy services to the community. 3 Legal Malpractice § 25:4 (2011 ed.). The problem rises when a nonlawyer provides the legal services directly.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) introduced strict measures on the conduct of consumer debtors’ attorneys as “debt relief agencies.” See 11 U.S.C.A. § 101(3), (4A), and (12A). Attorneys who provide bankruptcy assistance 2 to an assisted person 3 in return for payment are a debt relief agency within the meaning of section 101(12A) of the Bankruptcy Code 4 . Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., et al., v. United States, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 1324, 1332, 176 L.Ed.2d 79 (2010). Bankruptcy assistance, including the legal representation with respect to a case or proceeding, “may be provided only by attorneys.” Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P.A., et al., v. United States, 130 S.Ct. at 1332.

The bankruptcy attorney as a debt relief agency must provide the client, as an assisted person, with all the protection and rights set forth in 11 U.S.C.A. §§ 526 to 528. Section 526(a) and 527(a) provide specific prohibitions and responsibilities on the conduct of a consumer bankruptcy attorney, particularly with respect to the services to be provided and the statements to be included in documents filed with the bankruptcy court. 1 Bankruptcy Desk Guide § 2:55.

Section 526(a) prohibits attorneys meeting the definition of a debt relief agency from advising any assisted person or prospective assisted person from providing untrue and misleading statements. Such services may not be delegated to nonlawyers. Section 527(a)(2) requires that a debt relief agency (attorney) advises the assisted person (debtor or prospective debtor) of certain filing and disclosure requirements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Milavetz, Gallop & Milavetz, P. A. v. United States
559 U.S. 229 (Supreme Court, 2010)
Ex Parte Burr
22 U.S. 529 (Supreme Court, 1824)
Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.
501 U.S. 32 (Supreme Court, 1991)
In Re Nguyen
447 B.R. 268 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
457 B.R. 172, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 3368, 2011 WL 4056700, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-pereira-santiago-prb-2011.