Shelly W McCorvey

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION
In Re:
Shelly W. McCorvey,
Debtor.
) 	Case No. 11-32189
)
) 	Chapter 7
)
)
) 	JUDGE MARY ANN WHIPPLE
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION REGARDING MOTION TO DISGORGE FEES
This case is before the court on a motion filed by the United States Trustee (“UST”) to disgorge fees,
review services and fees paid, and enjoin bankruptcy petition preparer Donna Goolsby and attorney William
D. Goodrich from preparing any bankruptcy petition in the Northern District of Ohio “(Motion”) [Doc.
# 16] and the objection filed by Goodrich and Goolsby (“Objection”) [Doc. # 27]. The court held a hearing
at which counsel for the UST and counsel for Debtor attended in person. The was no attendance by, or on
behalf of, Goolsby or Goodrich. For the reasons that follow, Goodrich will be ordered to refund $2,500.00
to Debtor, and Goolsby will be ordered to pay a fine of $200.00 to the UST.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
At the hearing on the Motion, Debtor testified to the following, which testimony the court finds
credible. After an action had been commenced in state court to foreclose on a mortgage on Debtor’s home,
Debtor received a direct mailing from Summit Law, which was located in California. She contacted Summit
Law after she had received a notice of sheriff’s sale and was told that they could “help with her with the
the record of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
of this court the document set forth below. This document has been entered electronically in
The court incorporates by reference in this paragraph and adopts as the findings and analysis
Dated: June 25 2012
11-32189-maw Doc 53 FILED 06/25/12 ENTERED 06/25/12 15:49:20 Page 1 of 7

foreclosure.” She paid Summit Law a total of $3,000.00. Eventually, she was told by someone at Summit
Law that filing for bankruptcy protection would be her best option so that they could continue working with
her mortgage lender and, according to Debtor, “all of a sudden” William Goodrich (“Goodrich”) and Donna
Goolsby (“Goolsby”) were in contact with her. Debtor testified that she assumed Goodrich and Goolsby
were part of the Summit Law firm’s bankruptcy department.
Debtor further testified that she spoke to Attorney Goodrich only once and that he told her that “she
had a good case to save her house” and that Goolsby “would take care of all of the business.” Debtor paid
Goodrich Legal Services $2,500.00 by way of a wire transfer from her checking account. Debtor testified
that this payment was “for the bankruptcy portion of dealing with the foreclosure” and that Goodrich was
hired to work on no other matters for her.
After Debtor’s conversation with Goodrich, Goolsby was in contact with Debtor. 	Goolsby
explained what was involved in filing bankruptcy, what debt would be discharged, and the reaffirmation
of debts. She asked Debtor various questions and gathered information from her for preparation of her
Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, bankruptcy schedules and related documents. 	Goolsby then faxed the
completed documents to Debtor for her signature and for filing.
Notwithstanding the $2,500.00 payment to Goodrich Legal Services, Goodrich did not file a
Disclosure of Compensation of Attorney for Debtor and this payment is not disclosed in paragraph nine of
Debtor’s Statement of Financial Affairs prepared by Goolsby, which requires disclosure of all payments
made by Debtor “to any persons, including attorneys, for consultation concerning . . . relief under
bankruptcy law or preparation of a petition in bankruptcy within one year immediately preceding the
commencement of this case.” [UST Ex.5, ¶ 9]. And notwithstanding the itemization of exemptions on
Schedule C, Debtor testified that she has no legal training, no knowledge regarding the exemption statutes,
and did not inform Goolsby as to which exemptions should be included on Schedule C.
Goolsby signed Debtor’s petition, the Certification of Notice to Consumer Debtors under § 342(b)
of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Declaration and Signature of Non-Attorney Bankruptcy Petition Preparer
as “Donna Goolsby/Legal Assistant Goodrich Legal Services.” 	She also prepared a Disclosure of
Compensation of Bankruptcy Petition Preparer, indicating that she received $200.00 for her services in
preparing Debtor’s bankruptcy documents, that she was paid as an “Employee/Legal Assistant,” and that
the source of her compensation was “Goodrich Legal Services/Attorney.” 	In his Objection, Goodrich
confirms that his law firm paid Goolsby the $200.00 fee and states that he did not disclose his fees because
2
11-32189-maw Doc 53 FILED 06/25/12 ENTERED 06/25/12 15:49:20 Page 2 of 7

“he is working on other matters for the Debtor in connection with the Bankruptcy . . . .” 	[Doc. # 27, ¶¶ 6
& 8]. Goodrich states in his Objection that he is not admitted to practice law in Ohio, [Id. at ¶ 9], and the
court takes judicial notice of the fact that he is not admitted to practice law in the United States District
Court or the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.1
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In his Motion, the UST seeks disgorgement of all fees paid to Goodrich and/or Goodrich Legal
Services due to his failure to make the disclosures required under 11 U.S.C. § 329 and Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 2016 and as being excessive, as well as disgorgement of fees paid to Goolsby in
excess of the presumptive maximum allowable fee chargeable by a bankruptcy petition preparer. The UST
also argues that Goolsby rendered legal advice to Debtor in connection with her bankruptcy petition that
is prohibited under 11 U.S.C. § 110 and for which she may be subjected to a fine under § 110(l). Finally,
the UST seeks an order enjoining Goodrich from practicing law in the Northern District of Ohio absent
being properly admitted to do so, enjoining Goolsby from acting in concert with Goodrich without ensuring
full and accurate disclosures regarding Goodrich’s involvement in the case, and enjoining both Goolsby and
Goodrich from preparing any bankruptcy petition for filing in the Northern District of Ohio.
I. Injunctive Relief
To the extent the UST seeks an order enjoining Goodrich and Goolsby from engaging in the
unauthorized practice of law and filing bankruptcy petitions in the Northern District of Ohio, the court finds
the UST’s Motion procedurally defective. 	Under Bankruptcy Rule 7001, “a proceeding to obtain an
injunction or other equitable relief” must be brought by adversary proceeding, which is commenced by a
properly filed and served complaint. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001(1) and 7003; 11 U.S.C. § 110(j)(1)(provides
for civil action for injunctive relief); see In re Cincom iOutsource, Inc., 398 B.R. 223, 227 (Bankr. S.D.
Ohio 2008) (explaining that “[a] request for injunctive relief must be brought by adversary proceeding”);
In re Parker, 154 B.R. 240, 243 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1993) (stating that Rule 7001(7) “requires that any
request for injunctive relief be brought by way of an adversary proceeding”); In re Nieves, 290 B.R. 370,
1The Objection is procedurally defective. Goodrich appears to be representing both himself and Goolsby in connection
with the Motion. Goodrich did not seek pro hac vice admission for the purpose of filing the Objection either on his own behalf
or on Goolsby’s behalf. See Local Bankruptcy Rule 2090-1. 	Attorneys practicing in this court must 	file all documents
electronically absent manual filing of a motion for leave to file paper documents and advance permission to file manually. Local
Bankruptcy Rule 5005-4; Electronic Case Filing (ECF) Administrative Procedures Manual, ¶¶ 1.A.2., II.A.2. Goodrich also
disregarded these rules in filing the Objection.
3
11-32189-maw Doc 53 FILED 06/25/12 ENTERED 06/25/12 15:49:20 Page 3 of 7

380 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2003) (denying UST’s motion to enjoin party from acting as a bankruptcy petition
preparer and from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law because relief sought by motion rather than
adversary proceeding); see also Camall Co. v. Steadfast Ins. Co. (In re Camall Co.), 16 Fed. Appx. 403 (6th
Cir. 2001) (affirming bankruptcy court’s decision denying a motion for turnover because it was filed as a
motion rather than as an adversary proceeding as required under Rule 7001). The court will, therefore, deny
the Motion to the extent it seeks injunctive relief. Cf. 11 U.S.C. § 110(j)(3)(injunction based on failure to
comply with a previous order issued under this section may be issued on motion).
II. Disgorgement of Fees
The UST asserts that the $2,500.00 fee paid by Debtor to Goodrich or Goodrich Legal Services
should be disgorged because Goodrich did not disclose his fee as required by § 329 and Bankruptcy Rule
2016(b) and because his fee was excessive. Under § 329(a), “[a]ny attorney representing a debtor in a case
under [Title 11], or in connection with such a case, . . . shall file with the court a statement of the
compensation paid or agreed to be paid . . . for services rendered or to be rendered in contemplation of or
in connection with the case by such attorney. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) (emphasis added). Under § 329(b),
the court is authorized to review fees received by a debtor’s attorney and to assess the reasonable value of
services provided by the attorney. If the court determines the compensation received exceeds the reasonable
value of services rendered, it may cancel the fee agreement or order a return of the amount that is excessive.
11 U.S.C. § 329(b). “The burden of proof on all issues under 11 U.S.C. § 329 is on the attorney and it is
the attorney’s burden to come forward with the appropriate proof . . . to establish that the fee is reasonable.”
In re Robinson, 189 Fed. Appx. 371, 374 (6 th Cir. 2006) (citing In re Geraci, 138 F.3d 314, 318 (7th
Cir.1998)).
Section 329(a) is implemented by Bankruptcy Rules 2016(b), which provides that “[e]very attorney
for a debtor . . . shall file and transmit to the United States trustee . . . the statement required by § 329 of the
Code, including whether the attorney has shared or agreed to share the compensation with any other entity.”
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016(b). Section 329(b) is implemented by Bankruptcy Rule 2017, under which the court
may determine, after notice and a hearing, whether any payment to an attorney made “in contemplation of
the filing” of a bankruptcy petition is excessive. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2017(a).
In this case, the court agrees that Goodrich’s fee of $2,500.00 was excessive. His only contact with
Debtor consists of one telephone conversation during which he simply informed her that she had a “good
4
11-32189-maw Doc 53 FILED 06/25/12 ENTERED 06/25/12 15:49:20 Page 4 of 7

case” to save her house and referred her to Goolsby for preparation of her petition.2 Debtor filed her petition
pro se and later had to engage local counsel for representation at the meeting of creditors and to otherwise
assist her in this bankruptcy case. Goodrich has failed to otherwise justify his fee. Cf. In re Wood, 408
B.R. 841, 852-54 (Bankr. D. Kan. 2009) (disgorgement warranted where Kansas attorney associated with
legal services organization that prepared filings using either non-lawyers or lawyers not licensed to practice
law in Kansas or the district court and where attorney and organization effectively acted as bankruptcy
petition preparers).
Goodrich also failed to disclose any fee that he received from Debtor. 	Under § 329(a) and Rule
2016(b), he had an affirmative duty to disclose fully and completely any fee arrangement and payment.
Henderson v. Kisseberth (In re Kisseberth), 273 F.3d 714, 720 (6 th Cir. 2001). Although he states in his
Objection that he did not file a document disclosing his fee because he “is working on other matters for the
Debtor in connection with the Bankruptcy,” [Doc. # 27, ¶8], § 329(a) expressly requires disclosure of all
compensation paid “in connection with the case.” 	Moreover, as the UST argues, Goodrich cannot
circumvent the disclosure requirements by simply having his legal assistant, who was paid by Goodrich
Legal Services, identify herself as the bankruptcy petition preparer for his client.
While the court finds that the fee charged by Goodrich grossly exceeds the value of any service he
may have provided, the court also finds that disgorgement of the entire $2,500.00 paid by Debtor to
Goodrich and/or Goodrich Legal Services is appropriate given Goodrich’s failure to comply with the
disclosure requirements under § 329(a) and Rule 2016(b) and his apparent intent to completely circumvent
those requirements. As the Sixth Circuit explains in Kisseberth,
[t]he provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Rules that regulate attorney fees
are designed to protect both creditors and the debtor against overreaching attorneys. To
ensure such protection, bankruptcy courts have broad and inherent authority to deny any and
all compensation where an attorney fails to satisfy the requirements of the Code and Rules.
Kisseberth, 273 F.3d at 721 (internal citations omitted). Goodrich will, therefore, be ordered to refund to
Debtor the entire $2,500.00.
2 In his Objection, Goodrich states that Debtor had applied for a home mortgage loan modification through another law
firm before contact with him and that she was informed that she could not save her home except through a bankruptcy proceeding.
[See Doc. # 27,, ¶ 4]. It is not clear to the court how relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code would allow Debtor to “save
her house.” In fact, her home mortgage creditor filed a motion for relief from stay and abandonment, which was granted without
objection. [See Doc. ## 17 & 40].
5
11-32189-maw Doc 53 FILED 06/25/12 ENTERED 06/25/12 15:49:20 Page 5 of 7

The UST also seeks disgorgement of fees paid to Goolsby in excess of the presumptive maximum
allowable fee chargeable by a bankruptcy petition preparer. The presumptive maximum allowable fee that
a bankruptcy petition preparer may charge in the Northern District of Ohio is $125.00. 	See 11 U.S.C.
§ 110(h)(1); General Order No. 05-3 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Oct. 31, 2005).3 A petition preparer who charges
excessive fees without court approval is subject to an order disgorging such fees. 	See 11 U.S.C.
§ 110(h)(3)(A)(ii). However, in this case, the “fee” paid to Goolsby was not charged by Goolsby to Debtor
and was not paid by Debtor. 	The $200.00 that Goolsby received was paid to her by Goodrich Legal
Services as its employee. The purpose of § 110(h) is to regulate fees paid to a bankruptcy petition preparer
by, or on behalf of, debtors. See 11 U.S.C. § 110(h)(2) (requiring a bankruptcy petition preparer to file a
declaration disclosing any fee “received from or on behalf of the debtor. . . .”). It does not regulate fees paid
to an employee of a law firm to assist in the preparation of a debtor’s bankruptcy petition and schedules.
Both Goodrich in his Objection and Goolsby in her Disclosure of Compensation indicate that Goolsby was
paid as an employee of Goodrich Legal Services. Thus, disgorgement of the amount paid Goolsby in excess
of the presumptive maximum allowable fee is not appropriate.
III. Violation of 11 U.S.C. § 110(e)(2)
Under § 110(e)(2), a bankruptcy petition preparer “may not offer a potential bankruptcy debtor any
legal advice. . . .” 	11 U.S.C. § 110(e)(2)(A). 	“Legal advice” includes, among other things, advice
concerning bankruptcy procedures and rights and how to characterize the nature of the debtor’s interests
in property, advising the debtor regarding the dischargeability of debts and whether a debtor may reaffirm
a debt. 11 U.S.C. § 110(e)(2)(B)(ii), (v), (vi), and (vii). A bankruptcy petition preparer who fails to comply
with § 110(e) “may be fined not more than $500.00 for each such failure.” 11 U.S.C. § 110(l)(1).
In this case, Goolsby offered legal advice to Debtor by explaining what was involved in filing
bankruptcy, what debt would be discharged, and that debts may be reaffirmed. In addition, it is clear that
Debtor did not direct Goolsby as to which exemptions should be included on Schedule C. Determining
whether a debtor’s interest in property may be exempted and the basis for such exemption also constitutes
legal advice proscribed under § 110(e).
At the hearing, counsel for the UST orally requested that Goolsby be fined for her failure to comply
3 Although General Order No. 05-3 was in effect in April 2011 when Debtor filed her bankruptcy petition, it has since
been vacated, and the presumptive maximum allowable fee chargeable by a bankruptcy petition preparer is now found in Local
Bankruptcy Rule 2016-2.
6
11-32189-maw Doc 53 FILED 06/25/12 ENTERED 06/25/12 15:49:20 Page 6 of 7

with the specific mandate of § 110(e). While the court agrees that Goolsby’s conduct merits a fine, the court
has a due process concern with imposing a separate monetary sanction on Goolsby beyond the requested
disgorgement of the $200 fee addressed above. The Motion requests injunctive relief, not sanctions,
against Goolsby. She lacked effective notice before the hearing that she was subject to being personally
fined. She may have obtained counsel other than Goodrich or responded on her own, differently, to the
Motion if she were on notice that she faced a personal fine as a result of her conduct through her
employment by Goodrich. For that reason alone, the court will not impose a separate monetary fine against
Goolsby as a sanction for her failure to comply with § 110(e).
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the UST’s Motion will be granted to the extent it seeks disgorgement of
fees paid by Debtor to Goodrich or Goodrich Legal Services but will be denied to the extent it seeks
injunctive relief, 	disgorgement of the $200 fee paid by Goodrich to Goolsby and a separate monetary
sanction against Goolsby as orally requested at the hearing. 	The court will enter a separate order in
accordance with this Memorandum of Decision.
7
11-32189-maw Doc 53 FILED 06/25/12 ENTERED 06/25/12 15:49:20 Page 7 of 7