Lower-income debtors simply cannot afford the high cost of filing chapter 7, and that is a real problem when garnishments strike.

The cost of filing Chapter 7 in Nebraska ranges from $1,300 to $1,800 and ALL of those fees must be paid in full to file a case. How can low-income debtors stop garnishments if they cannot afford the fee?

Many debtors have no choice but to file a chapter 13 case which can be filed for as little as $75 down.  But attorney fees in Chapter 13 cases are currently set by court rules at $4,000 payable in monthly installments over 3 to 5 years. Chapter 13 cases are cheap to file but cost 3 to 4 times more in the long run.

And whereas chapter 7 cases have a 95% success rate, chapter 13 discharge rates are less than 50% nationally.

Lower-income families face a tough choice, but a bankruptcy court in Kentucky recently issued an opinion that may provide a roadmap to making the chapter 7 process more affordable.

Kentucky’s Bifurcation Opinion.

In the case of Chanda S. Carr, the Kentucky court reviewed a bifurcated fee arrangement in which the debtor was charged $300 down to file an incomplete chapter 7 petition consisting of nothing more than her name and a list of her creditors.

After the case was filed, the debtor signed a new fee agreement to pay $1,185 payable in 12 monthly installments of $98.75 for the remainder of the legal work.

On it’s own motion, the court reviewed this fee arrangement in great detail. The court noted several important factors in approving this Dual Contract scheme.


It was very apparent that the debtor’s attorney made a full disclosure of all payment options.

First, the debtor was offered the option of filing a normal chapter 7 case for $1,135, but all of that fee had to be paid in full before the case could be filed.

Then, the debtor was offered a bifurcated fee arrangement of $300 down and then 12 payments of $98.75, for a total of $1,485.  This bifurcated arrangement would ultimately cost the debtor an extra $350 since it is more costly to prepare cases in this manner and payment to the attorney is stretched out over a year.

The combination of an inability to pay for a lower upfront fee combined with an imminent garnishment was a key factor in the court’s analysis. In other words, the debtor made an informed choice.

What is important to observe here is that the debtor was first offered a standard contract–pay a lower fee upfront to file a standard chapter 7 case. The debtor was not steered to the dual contract scheme, but rather chose that option when it was apparent that she could not afford to prepay all the fees up front and garnishments were pending.

The combination of an inability to pay for a lower upfront fee combined with an imminent garnishment was a key factor in the court’s analysis. In other words, the debtor made an informed choice.  She chose the lesser of of two evils–to pay a little more in the long run in order to avoid losing even more from a garnishment.  All the alternatives were laid on the table. She made a reasoned choice. That is a key factor.

Pre-petition Fees Not Shifted to Post-Petition Payments.

The United States Trustees Office–the supervisor of bankruptcy cases–is highly suspicious that attorneys using the Dual Contract method are really preparing most of the case prior to filing and then attempting to collect their fees after the case is filed.  In other words, the US Trustee believes this scheme is a fraud.

In fact, US Trustee investigations of attorneys using bifurcated contracts have revealed that some attorneys have clients sign both contracts at the same meeting and that most of the petition was prepared before the case was filed.

In the Carr case the Kentucky court determined that attorney and the debtor had a post-petition meeting to sign the second contract. The court found that the attorney really did prepare the bulk of the petition and perform the majority of the legal work after the case was filed. The court underscored the importance of this factor.

The Debtor’s Case Must Be Simple.

Bifurcation agreements are not appropriate for complex cases.  Why? Because complex cases require more pre-petition analysis to determine if a debtor’s income is too high to qualify for chapter 7 and even more analysis to determine if the debtor’s property is protected by exemption laws.

Cases involving higher-income debtors who own substantial property require most of the legal work be completed before the case is filed.  Thus, it is a fraud to use bifurcated contracts in those cases since no competent attorney would file a risky case without a full analysis of the debtor’s income, expenses, property and property transfers. A bifurcated fee arrangement in complex cases would be a lie.

But cases involving lower-income debtors with little property are inherently simple and require little pre-petition analysis. Determining if a debtor is above or below Median Income is simple.  For example, the annual median income for a single person in Nebraska is $48,796.  A debtor earning $12 per hour clearly earns less than that amount.  A debtor who rents an apartment with only basic household goods and who owns a used vehicle does not present a complex asset case requiring careful exemption planning.

Lower-income debtors with few assets facing imminent garnishments are the ideal candidates for bifurcated fee agreements since the bulk of the legal work can be prepared post-petition.  The Kentucky court agreed with this reality.

Bifurcated Legal Fees Must Be Reasonable and Should Not Utilize Factoring Arrangements.

The common link between cases where attorneys have been disciplined for the use of bifurcated fee agreements is the presence of factoring arrangements.

Almost all the attorneys sanctioned in bifurcated fee arrangements were using an accounts receivable factoring arrangement offered by BK Billing or Fresh  Start Funding.

The factoring finance companies present attorneys with a slick marketing package complete with fee agreements, disclosure statements and a pricing scheme that basically doubles the cost of the chapter 7 case.   Attorneys that would normally charge $1,500 to file a chapter 7 case are encouraged to bump the price of the case to $2,400.  After the dual contracts are signed by the client, the attorney sells off his post-petition contact to the finance company and receives an immediate payment of $1,500.  The financing company collects future payments from the debtor at typically high interest rates.

Factoring the legal fee contract is attractive to attorneys. Instead of waiting for debtors to slowly pay in their normal fee, they can now streamline the process and get paid now by advertising “No Money Down” chapter 7 services. And believe me, you can file a lot of chapter 7 cases if you can really charge no money down.  There is no shortage of people who need to file bankruptcy, but there is a real shortage of debtors who can afford the $1,500 fee to go broke.

Factoring arrangements should be avoided since they escalate the price of bankruptcy services to unreasonable levels.

But the attorney in the Carr case did not utilize a factoring arrangement. Nor did the attorney charge high interest rates. The extra cost he charged the client for the bifurcated fee arrangement was only $350, and that amount seems reasonable given the extra work bifurcated contracts require and the delay and risk associated with collecting payment.

Birfurcated contracts that charge only slightly higher fees than standard contracts for lower-income debtors with relatively simple cases are likely to be respected by the US Trustee and the courts.

Is the Bifurcated Contract Affordable?

The debtor in the Carr opinion was only required to pay 12 monthly payments of $98.75 post-petition.  Her monthly budget indicated that she could afford that payment. The amount of that payment was reasonable.  The Kentucky court found this payment agreement to be feasible and modest.

Courts that have sanctioned attorneys have found the payment demanded by factoring finance companies to be excessive and predatory. In those cases the debtor’s income and expense schedules would often show negative monthly income but the factoring contract would require payments of $200 per month or more.

If it is clear that a debtor cannot afford to a pay post-petition legal fee installment it is advisable not to enter into a bifurcated fee arrangement.


The time has come for bankruptcy courts to craft Safe Harbor rules on the use of bifurcated fee arrangements. If we are really serious about addressing the very real problem of low-income debtors being denied access to our justice system, then we need to come up with a compensation system that encourages attorneys to assist those debtors now.

Just making statements like “we really need to change the bankruptcy law” is not enough. We have to work with the tools we have in our hands now instead of waiting for a legislative change that may never come.  Bifurcation is a tool we currently have that can immediately help lower-income debtors facing wage garnishments.

The cost of delaying the establishment of safe harbor bifurcation rules is significant. When low-income debtors cannot afford to pay for bankruptcy fees their wages become garnished, they fall behind on rent, they suffer evictions, their financial distress ignites family distress, and their children pay a dear price.

Attorneys feel threatened by the US Trustee’s office. The attorney in the Carr case faced a significant investigation by the US Trustee and faced potential sanctions and disgorgement of fees. Without safe harbor rules attorneys are reluctant to take a chance of being sanctioned or having their fees disgorged.

Congress is not going to fix this problem anytime soon. Nonprofit organizations lack the resources to handle the volume of cases.

The bankruptcy community of attorneys, trustees and judges must lay the framework to help the working poor access our justice system with the tools we already possess.


Image courtesy of Flickr Carl Wycoff.