Jolene M Ramalho

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CENTRAL DIVISION
In re 	: 	Chapter 7
HEATHER M. and ANGEL L. OTERO 	: 	CASE NO. 10-41071-MSH
DEBTORS 	:
In re 	: 	Chapter 7
JOLENE M. RAMALHO 	: 	CASE NO. 10-41073-MSH
DEBTOR___________ :
In re 	: 	Chapter 7
TIMOTHY J. WADE 	: 	CASE NO. 10-41074-MSH
DEBTOR____________:
In re 	: 	Chapter 7
MICHELE J. CHAPDELAINE 	: 	CASE NO. 10-41092-MSH
DEBTOR______________________________:
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION ON MOTIONS TO EXAMINE DEBTORS’
TRANSACTIONS WITH COUNSEL AND FOR ORDERS REQUIRING COUNSEL TO
DISGORGE ALL COMPENSATION
John P. Fitzgerald, III, Acting United States Trustee (“UST”), filed identical
motions in each of the above cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 586(a)(3), 11 U.S.C. §
105, 307, and 329(b), and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016 and 2017 requesting an examination
of the transactions between each debtor and Christopher Uhl, who represented each
Case 10-41073 Doc 21 Filed 06/18/10 Entered 06/18/10 08:34:25 Desc Main
Document Page 1 of 5

2
debtor, and an order requiring Mr. Uhl to disgorge all compensation paid to him by each
debtor due to his failure to accompany the debtors to the meeting of creditors under 11
U.S.C. § 341. 1 Mr. Uhl filed identical objections to each motion stating, among other
things, that he had arranged for his paralegal, a second year law student, “to sit at the
341 Meeting, check client ID’s and explain the process to the client before the Meeting.”
I held a hearing on the motions on June 10, 2010. Neither Mr. Uhl nor anyone
representing him appeared.
Heather Otero, Michele Chapdelaine, and Timothy Wade, three of the debtors
whom Mr. Uhl failed to accompany to their § 341 meetings, were in attendance at the
hearing and testified concerning Mr. Uhl’s representation. Each debtor testified to
receiving a telephone call from Mr. Uhl’s office the day before the scheduled § 341
meeting with instructions as to when and where to meet Mr. Uhl the next day. Each
debtor testified to being told by Mr. Uhl or one of his employees of the importance of the
§ 341 meeting and to being warned that if the debtor failed to appear, he or she would
owe Mr. Uhl an additional $500. Ms. Otero testified that when she arrived at the § 341
meeting Mr. Uhl was not in attendance; instead she was met by a woman who
introduced herself as Mr. Uhl’s partner. Ms Chapdelaine testified that when she arrived
at the § 341 meeting she was met by Mr. Uhl’s paralegal. She also testified that in the
entire course of her representation by Mr. Uhl she met him once for approximately ten
minutes. Mr. Wade, who testified he never met Mr. Uhl, also stated that when he
arrived at the 341 meeting Mr. Uhl was a no-show and he was met instead by a woman
who identified herself as Mr. Uhl’s associate. In the testimony of these debtors the
1 The UST filed an identical motion in In re Annette L. Doherty, Chapter 7 Case No. 10-41070-HJB.
Case 10-41073 Doc 21 Filed 06/18/10 Entered 06/18/10 08:34:25 Desc Main
Document Page 2 of 5

3
consistent refrain was one of surprise and indignation at Mr. Uhl’s failure to accompany
them to their trustee examination.
According to the Statements of Compensation, signed and filed by Mr. Uhl
pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016(b) in each of the above-captioned cases, he was
paid between $1,001 to $1,501 for legal services plus $299 for the filing fee. 2
Paragraph 6 of each of the Statements of Compensation provides:
In return for the above-disclosed compensation, I have agreed to render
legal service for all aspects of the bankruptcy case, including …
c. Representation of the debtor at the meeting of creditors….
The § 341 meeting is most often a debtor’s first exposure to the public face of the
bankruptcy process and to the adversarial forces potentially arrayed against her. Much
depends on her performance before a sober and probing trustee and sometimes hostile
creditors. The § 341 meeting is the crucible in which the months or years of the debtor’s
financial and emotional hardship are fused into a final cathartic event. The debtor is
often distracted by nerves and fear. She thus has every reason to expect a
knowledgeable and zealous ally at her side. This is where the bankruptcy lawyer earns
his fee.
The Rules of Professional Conduct of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court, which apply to attorneys practicing in federal as well as state court, require,
among other things, that a lawyer provide competent representation, Rule 1.1, and that
he not assist another in the unauthorized practice of law. Rule 5.5. Fed. R. Bankr. P.
2 The Oteros paid Mr. Uhl $1,501; Ms. Chapdelaine paid him $1,201. The other debtors each paid him
$1,001.
Case 10-41073 Doc 21 Filed 06/18/10 Entered 06/18/10 08:34:25 Desc Main
Document Page 3 of 5

4
9010(a) also restricts the role a non-lawyer may play in a bankruptcy case to either pro
se representation or acts “not constituting the practice of law.”
[A] professional, practicing bankruptcy law, cannot apply a high level of
knowledge and skills unless he has some contact, and first meets, with the client
to determine the client's needs and explains what action, if any, is required and
its effects. Reviewing papers prepared by a secretary from information supplied
by a client to a secretary is not sufficient, as the high level of knowledge and
skills is not present when the questions are asked. The secretary may or may not
ask the right questions. Furthermore, if a problem exists, the secretary may not
recognize it as such. If the secretary did so, the secretary cannot advise the
client, as that would constitute the practice of law.
Nor can an attorney apply his professional knowledge and skills without attending
the first meeting of creditors. By filing the petition in bankruptcy, the attorney sets
in motion a series of events, including the first meeting of creditors, which
exposes a layperson to a potential plethora of legal hurdles. The layperson will
be exposed to questioning by a professional trustee and attorneys representing
creditors. The layperson may be asked to take certain actions. In response, the
layperson, acting out of ignorance or feeling that there was no need for an
attorney to represent him, may say or do something to his or her detriment.
Having initiated the process, an attorney must shepherd the client through it, to
its conclusion.
In re Bancroft, 204 B.R. 548, 551-52 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1997).
Mr. Uhl abandoned his clients at the moment they needed him most. In the
process he misled them by creating the expectation that he would be present at their
§341 meetings and by sending in his place a non-lawyer employee, who, in at least two
instances, created the false impression that she was a lawyer. Mr. Uhl violated ethical
and bankruptcy rules. The debtors were right to be indignant. Mr. Uhl’s conduct is an
embarrassment to the conscientious members of the bankruptcy bar who take seriously
their duties to the public. It is an affront to the court, which, in the public mind,
symbolizes the bankruptcy process.
Case 10-41073 Doc 21 Filed 06/18/10 Entered 06/18/10 08:34:25 Desc Main
Document Page 4 of 5

5
The UST’s motions are allowed. Mr. Uhl shall immediately refund to each debtor
the full amount of all fees, including court filing fees, paid to him by each debtor.
Separate orders shall issue.
Dated: June 18, 2010 	_____________________________
Melvin S. Hoffman
United States Bankruptcy Judge
Case 10-41073 Doc 21 Filed 06/18/10 Entered 06/18/10 08:34:25 Desc Main
Document Page 5 of 5