%1

On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida entered an order[1] to reduce a chapter 13 debtor’s attorney’s fee application by more than 70 percent. The order provides a detailed analysis of the Court’s review of the limited case law on fee awards in Chapter 13 cases, as well as an in depth explanation by the Court of the basis for the fee reduction and ultimate award in the case before it. The Order also contains strong words for the fee applicant regarding his application and billing practices.

On May 18, 2016, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a 51-page opinion resolving its Order Setting Show Cause Hearing (the “show cause order”) in the chapter 13 case of Netoche Brigham Fair (the debtor, or “Ms.

A critical issue for all attorneys who represent debtors in bankruptcy is how to ensure payment for services performed both prior to and after a bankruptcy filing. One way that attorneys seek to secure payment for post-petition services is by obtaining an “advance fee retainer” that is earned in full upon receipt and thus arguably never becomes property of the debtor’s estate and can be used to fund post-petition services.

Professional fees are increasingly a hot-button issue in bankruptcy cases. This article examines three recent ongoing, high-profile bankruptcy cases that reflect the growing scrutiny of professional fees: Caesars Entertainment Operating Co. Inc., et al.,[1] SunEdison Inc., et al.[2] and Sabine Oil & Gas Corp., et al.[3]

In Hoover v. Harger (In re Jones),[1] the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit considered an appeal from an attorney who was sanctioned sua sponte by the Northern District of Ohio’s bankruptcy court and ordered to pay opposing counsel’s attorney fees. The appellant alleged that the bankruptcy court had abused its discretion in imposing sanctions based on erroneous factual findings.

It has become increasingly common for companies to use nonattorneys in attorney roles for the purpose of cutting costs. However, occasionally these “fee-saving” measures actually end up costing a company even more than if they had an attorney do the work in the first place. Nowhere can this be more problematic [or expensive] than in the bankruptcy area, particularly if the company fails to have procedures in place to recognize and react to the automatic stay in routine collection matters.

In Baker Botts L.L.P. v. ASARCO,[1] the Supreme Court held that under § 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, estate professionals are not entitled to payment of fees and expenses incurred in connection with the defense of such professional’s fee applications.