Fee-Only Chapter 13 - Bankruptcy Court vs. Appeals Court

 I read a blog today, as well as the written opinion of the Court, concerning what is called a "fee-only Chapter 13 plan". While I agree with the ruling of the Court I completely disagree with the blog and was shocked that a lawyer would take such an action as a matter of course. A summary of the facts are:
 A potential client approached a bankruptcy lawyer about filing a Chapter 7 which the client clearly qualified for however, the client did not have the funds to pay the Chapter 7 fee. It is not clear whether the potential client had any money or simply did not have enough money to pay the lawyer in full. It is also not clear what the legal fees were qoted for the Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Finally it is not clear what other facts, if any, existed that would have made the filing reasonable, which is why the case was reversed.
I'll make the assumption that the Chapter 7 fee was between $800 to $1,500 plus filing fees. Inasmuch as the client did not have the funds the lawyer suggested that the client file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The fee for a Chapter 13 case was $2,900 plus filing fees. The legal fees would be deferred and paid in installments by the Chapter 13 Trustee. The Chapter 13 payment would be roughly $100 a month for 36 months.  A chapter 7 bankruptcy is over in approximately four (4) months while this Chapter 13 case will take three (3) years. The result was the lawyer got paid, the Chapter 13 Trustee received his commission and there was nothing paid to creditors. The Bankruptcy Court and the Federal District Court threw the case out as having been filed in bad faith and the case was appealed to the Federal Circuit Court. The Circuit Court reversed the lower Court's ruling that the bankruptcy court could not, out of hand, dismiss the case without first examining the facts. The bottom line to the ruling is that the Bankruptcy Court must review the facts before concluding whether or not a case was filed in bad faith. I want to make clear this case did not occur in Texas where I practice.
 Very few lawyers want to extend credit to a client filing Chapter 7 because the legal fees still owed on the Chapter 7 filing date are discharged and any payment made by the client to the attorney post-filing is strictly voluntary. I believe that I am one of the few lawyers that will allow a client to make payments, get the case started, but not file the case until the case has been paid in full. In almost all cases allowing a client to make weekly or monthly payments usually, but not always, fixes the above problem. Barring some type of situation that required a case to be filed immediately there is no reason for the above fact pattern to take place. If the client could make $100 a month payments to the Chapter 13 Trustee, the client could have made those payments to the lawyer. The result would have been accomplished in for a lot less money and in a lot less time.
 What the Appeals Court said, in my opinion, was that merely filing a Chapter 13 case so a lawyer can get paid is not going to fly unless there exists facts of a compelling nature that would have required the attorney to advise his client to file a chapter 13. For example, if the client’s wages were being garnished by a creditor holding a significant claim might well justify the filing of a Chapter 13 immediately. Therefore, the Bankruptcy Court was required to look at the facts before concluding a case was filed in bad faith, rather than summarily dismissing a case. From my point of view the ruling is standard text book law and there is nothing remarkable in this ruling. The case certainly does not stand for the principal that a fee only chapter 13 case is acceptable.  In fact the course was very clear when it said fee only plans should only be used in exceptional circumstances, noting that they may be "vulnerable to abuse by attorneys seeking to advance their own interests without due regard for the interests their clients".
 On a more personal note, I have a hard time justifying this practice except in very limited circumstances. In fact I never have attempted to accomplish such a thing. Not everything about the practice of law is about money. On numerous occasions I have cut my fees when I concluded that it was appropriate.