2015 Northeast Consumer Forum, 2014

State courts are increasingly relaxing their rules to allow attorneys to provide a-la-carte services to parties in cases appearing before them. However, bankruptcy courts have been reluctant to do so. Is it because the Bankruptcy Code is so complicated? Or is it because what is good for parties in state court is not good for those in bankruptcy court? This panel of experts will examine whether counsel can provide limited representation services to parties in bankruptcy matters and maintain their ethical obligations to the client.

Chapter 13 practice is complicated, and the days when a debtor’s 13 plan was quickly confirmed are few and far between. In addition to proposing confirmable chapter 13 plans, debtors’ attorneys (and in some cases chapter 13 trustees) are litigating defective mortgage claims and contentious objections to confirmation. How can debtors’ counsel ensure that they are compensated for these complicated cases that not only sit on the bankruptcy court’s docket, but often end up on appeal?

Parties can view social media as a treasure-trove of information: Does a debtor discuss assets on Facebook that are not found on the schedules? Do parties make statements in their online posts that conflict with legal positions they are taking in bankruptcy court? Does the ethical duty of a reasonable investigation encompass an obligation to investigate a client’s social media activity? This panel of experts will review the ethical obligations of investigating social media websites of clients and parties, and what may — and in some cases, must — be done to remain zealous advocates.