Skip to main content

§ 528

Thomas, In re

Ruling
Debtor’s attorneys’ fees denied and ordered disgorged due to failure to execute a writtenattorney retention and fee agreement with the debtor. (Bankr. C.D. Ill.)
Issue(s)
Requirements For Debt Relief Agencies; Contracts and Disclosures.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Thomas, In re Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 14, 2024 , LexisNexis #0424-042

Rosema, In re

Ruling
Court approved settlement agreement between the U.S. Trustee and debtors' attorneys overattorneys' fees. (Bankr. W.D. Mo.)
Issue(s)
Requirements For Debt Relief Agencies.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Rosema, In re Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 08, 2022 , LexisNexis #0822-092

Negron, In re

Ruling
Applications for compensation denied where contracts for bankruptcy assistance did notcomply with the material requirements of § 528. (Bankr. D.P.R.)
Issue(s)
Requirements For Debt Relief Agencies; Contracts and Disclosures; Inclusions Within

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Negron, In re Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

:
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on April 28, 2020 , LexisNexis #0620-064

Perez, In re

Ruling
Court ruled that both original and amended contract for bankruptcy assistance between debtor and law firm were void as it did not explain the services and fees provided. (Bankr. D.P.R.)
Issue(s)
Requirements For Debt Relief Agencies; Contracts and Disclosures.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Perez, In re Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on July 31, 2018 , LexisNexis #0918-052

Milavetz Gallop & Milavetz PA v. United States

Ruling
BAPCPA provision violates First Amendment rights by barring truthful as well as false and deceptive advertising.
Procedural posture

Plaintiffs, practicing bankruptcy attorneys, sought an order declaring portions of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ("BAPCPA") that restricted and compelled speech on the part of debt relief agencies unconstitutional as violative of the First Amendment, at least as applied to attorneys. Defendant United States moved to dismiss the claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Milavetz Gallop & Milavetz PA v. United States Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

opinion summary, case decided on December 07, 2006 , LexisNexis #0107-005