Thursday, March 24, 2011

What Should a Bankruptcy Cost?

Whenever I speak with a potential client, one of the questions always asked, often one of the first, is "how much will it cost?" This is a legitimate question, but, upon hearing my estimate (which varies from case to case) some potential clients never become clients. I am sure that in many cases they find someone willing to do the work cheaper.

Consumer bankruptcy attorneys all seem to compete on price. It's understandable that someone facing bankruptcy needs the lowest cost possible, but what clients often don't understand is that bankruptcies aren't like potatoes. In most cases, a pound of potatoes from one grocer is as good as a pound from another, so it makes sense to find the grocer with the lowest cost. But everybody's financial situation is different. It doesn't make sense to shop for a bankruptcy attorney solely on the basis of cost.

Many large-volume bankruptcy attorneys (or bankruptcy mills) churn out dozens of cases a week. In a consumer bankruptcy, about the only thing an attorney can't delegate to a paralegal is appearing in court, so those high volume attorneys spend their time in court and leave the rest to secretaries and paralegals. That means except for the few minutes when the client is actually in court or at the meeting of creditors, he or she doesn't speak directly to the attorney. Secretaries and paralegals can't give legal advice, which means they can't answer a client's questions in many cases. Is that what clients want, to pay the lowest fee and be run through a processor?

Bankruptcy is a serious step. It's a confusing process that goes on for months and, in Chapter 13, years. Clients should be willing to pay enough to get the attention they deserve.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Barry Bonds Goes on Trial

The trial of Barry Bonds, major league baseball's home run king, for lying to a grand jury about whether he used steroids during his career, began today. But as Tom Verducci, columnist for Sports Illustrated, points out in his article on SI.com, this trial isn't about Bonds' legacy, which, according to Verducci (and whose opinion I share) is non-existent. The ones who have something at stake are the lawyers on both sides. The prosecutors have to gain a conviction to prove they haven't wasted eight years and countless thousands, if not millions, of taxpayer dollars chasing someone whose conviction or acquittal has little social importance. Society doesn't need protection from Barry Bonds and the Balco steroid shop was shut down years ago, so Bonds' conviction, if it comes, is a ho-hum deal legally. The defense attorneys need an acquittal because in the world of criminal defense, a high profile loss can end a lawyer's career almost as quickly as using steroids can end an athlete's career.

So Barry Bonds is all-time home run king and Mark McGwire, whose image is as tainted as Bonds', is the single season home run king. In a lot of people's eyes, Hank Aaron and Roger Maris are still the kings. And some die-hards even question Maris, because he hit his 61 season homers in 162 games instead of the 154 that Babe Ruth had. That debate will continue like it has for nearly 50 years, but no one ever accused any of those guys of playing juiced.