good morning i'm here on my own opposed to feel i wanted to bring to the court's attention there was a case i found that i did not cite it's a tenth circuit bankruptcy panel case in rate edward t a h a h it's at three thirty bankruptcy reporter seven seventy seven i believe this represents my position but there are particularly the concurring opinion that that these local guidelines cannot alter the provisions of the bankruptcy code particularly section process when you submitted a no look application yes that was without a lot approved as part of the confirmation of the plan after that you submitted a look at it application for fees that related to the entire proceeding that is the warrant for fees that were incurred after the no look well the application asked to justify the base fees previously approved you going to get it there is a credit or a payment that you received it was for for the the look at application was not for fees that were incurred after plan confirmation and after the award of no work fleas that right it included the entire case and included the entire proceedings and that was that was yes and that was the practice of the time maybe here's my question having submitted the no work application which effectively represents to the bankruptcy court that those are the reasonable fees for the services performed today and that having been approved and eight affleck ation for fees covering the entire proceeding having been  after that why shouldn't the bankruptcy court at that point then say wait a minute i'm going to go back now and assess the reasonableness of the fees as a whole  the no luck application those were reasonable fees for this basic core services that were performed but now you want me to itemize and there was no work done on vehicles that was worth anything and so i'll give you the money for the state because that was above and beyond well that's that's not that's not really true i mean basically there's a huge number of these b cases th getting any few orders for nine months or a year and this case i felt this was particularly ridiculous to even go back and say the presumptive fees of two hundred dollars for the car or nine there was no problem there's a case where the debtor had a thirty thousand our car loan which i crammed down to twenty thousand dollars in a confirmed plan i don't know i mean the judge in some of these opinions talk about extraordinary what is an ordinary chapter thirteen out there's no standard established for that when what's happened since this appeal was filed is seen as has gone from a very low fee schedule a very generous fee schedule the highest in the bay area the base case is now two thousand seven hundred fifty dollars seven hundred dollars if you have a car seven hundred dollars if you have tax problems even if it's only a three hundred dollar tax problem so  now to make a lot of money is not take difficult cases this was a difficult case samoan immigrant family he had a daughter who was a problem call the police on her father he actually went to jail for six weeks we're trying to save their  house it's more difficult to communicate with people that are in jail i probably could have explained this to the judge if every time i said hearing on a few application you had taken under submission never had a chance to appear in court and discuss this the problem i have with the guidelines that i wanted to find understand the crush of trying to manage hundreds of bankruptcy cases we have very entrepreneurial county in sanford county we  lot of high earner people in chapter thirteen zlata lawyers a lot of medical doctors and so i understand that those guidelines are an appropriate way to handle a great majority of the cases but they should be allowed alter the bankruptcy code section three thirty says we're supposed to be adequately compensated how many are to help me understand with respect to the statute as distinct from i'm hearing your story which is an interesting story with some sympathetic aspects of it now what i'm after after is help me understand your argument with respect to the statute what's wrong with the no look what's wrong with reopening once you submitted detailed application to sort of say ok well we're not doing for the consumer debt or bar i have nothing against the way we do these things but it certainly did not address the type of practice i had where i was handling probably eighty percent of the cases involving foreclosures  to the point of the legal argument the legal argument is extra there's nothing in three thirty that says you have to have extraordinary services to be compensated i mean these are some hours reasonable number of hours times a reasonable hourly rate should be your feet i don't see any basis for saying oh it has to be an extraordinary case that you think a letter let me translated into other language which i think also accurately characterizes what's questions asked you get it if on the other hand you think this is a case in which to present to compensate you went to a lower level you are allowed to submit a detailed free application and the judge says ok now let me see what you actually spent but i'm going but we all understand that this is the presumptive me and i'm going to need evidence that this is what you actually say in terms of your hours and so on that you actually did it what's wrong with that why what's wrong with my description of it  descriptions right what's wrong with that as a matter with the description that you look first of all everybody gets the presumption theon sounds a this is not an opt out county like sacramento sacramento you you choose you say i'll take the pres write but what's wrong with that not i understand you may object to what he did in a specific case but i'm asking what's wrong with that in terms of concept with the thing that's wrong with in terms of concept is not complying with the bankruptcy code and what and why because i've been  what respect is a violate the bankruptcy code because it was it's not compensation based on a reasonable number of hours times a reasonable hourly rate i had reduced my overly rate to earn fifty dollars an hour from the two eighty five he had been approving because at a hearing he stated that the join of fifty dollars an hour was going to be the maximum rate for any chapter thirteen bankruptcy condition and he had me and two other people he felt good deal with that  so if two fifty's a reasonable hourly rate and it was reasonable for me to have spent that time in the case and that may be the question i think we're at ships passing in the night here because i hear your argument so i'll just let you guys but i hear you saying this case there are more things which in effect is saying to the judge this is extraordinary it doesn't fit the usual model what i hear the judge saying is well these presumptive the snow looks the that's going to cover the time you need for an ordinary case and he's waiting for you to tell him why this wasn't an ordinary case at least or here doesn't reflect that he heard a reason from you as to why a larger fee was reasonable because he didn't think it should take more hours than the presumption if he covers me so so just like you're trying to ask in theory is there something wrong with the system if in fact the lawyer has an opportunity to explain why this case needed more first of all i didn't have an opportunity explain oh you have papers you filed papers repeatedly it should have gone there was no hearing and second of all i did fee the fourteen hundred plus the two hundred for a car that argument i can hear but that doesn't say why the system itself is is flawed and the argument i've read in your brief is the system itself doesn't comply with the statute and i frankly don't understand that i know why the system can't comply with the statute as long as the opportunity is there to explain why a given case required more well i think that's the case concurring opinion is it addresses it more detail section three thirty says response to get reasonable compensation there's the guidelines are fine if you have a case that is what is with what the guidelines were determined under and you accept those as your total fees when you have a guideline that provides for a certain amount of fees just because someone has a real estate case that does not adequately compensate you for having to deal with a number of hearings where people are trying to get relief to foreclose on the debtors house since i understand the system you can then say ok i don't want to do the no look system i want to submit a detailed the application and i'll tell you how many hours i spent in what i did and then the judge looks at it and he gives you whatever money the judge thinks is appropriate under the circumstances and you may have a disagreement with the judge as to the amount he then gives you but it sounds like sounds to me as at least as a as an abstract system that is a defensible system it's if operated in that fashion is that if your the guideline fees are to handle the bulk of the administration and then upon a fee application though it should be evaluated under the standards of the code section three thirty if it is lodestar kirk type factors is that what you're arguing i think that's more accurate as far as what the result should be because you could have guideline fees that you didn't fully earn and then you would you might have a very difficult case which with differed in what happened i guess is that once the fia cation was filed it should have been using the lodestar in the code under three thirty the guidelines shouldn't have been used as a measuring stick for each of the tasks i guess to respond to your questions what i'm understanding you're asking me is that what happened in this case you had said what we've determined the two hundred dollars is enough to take care of a car and now that i look at it i did take care of the car problem but you know sometimes the file and you don't have to have a hearing you negotiated with the creditor and he said well this real estate fee should have been enough you know they all average out and i think that lower court in the case the judge said well this is one of those cases that should average out and the problem i have with that is that assumes that this is somehow some kind of a legal aid practice they were doing  required twenty seven hundred dollars worth of time average out means in some cases you make more in some cases you make less it's not purely a legal aid system you're making more in some cases but the fees on that in effect at that time were they're probably overly generous and i guess my challenge is to what is the standard for reviewing a few application when the few application is brought in a chapter thirteen  it just because we've come up with some administrative devices that come up with guidelines and what happens in this whole system is that people with difficult cases aren't going to get representation i stopped last year doing you know panic foreclosure cases so sad too bad i certainly you know do a lot of cases i don't you know there's a theory i guess that attorneys are like buses and anybody who has a token gets to get on and somehow you take all these cases and on how work out but i don't think that's a proper way to look at it each case has filing a no look application from doing it based on hours from the very beginning i'm sorry i don't understand the question well as i understand here you filed what they call a no look application basically signed up for the program that gives you a  elect not to put in that submission and simply claim for hours at the end not getting the quick payment fee i suppose you could but san jose doesn't preclude you from making a few application if you get to know look in san jose the guidelines say you can get the no look fees if you think it's not adequate and that's in the exhibits then you can make a video system if you've got a case where you say the system is not going to work for me so i'm just never going to enter it during that precludes you from from opting out of the my only i have a complaint that is just this is the way it was handled is very subjective there's no basis for an ordinary are extraordinary case in the code and unless you have any