UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

In re: Case No.: 21-10643-MAM

Chapter 13

Charlotte Lockhart,

Debtor.

_____________________________/

ORDER SANCTIONING (I) ATTORNEY BRIAN J. COHEN, (II) ATTORNEY 

JOSH ARTHUR, AND (III) THE COHEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

THIS MATTER came before the Court on February 1, 2022, at 11:00 a.m. (the 

“Show Cause Hearing”) upon the Order Directing Attorney Brian J. Cohen and the 

Cohen Law Firm, P.A. to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not Be Imposed (ECF 

No. 52) (the “Show Cause Order”). Attorney Brian J. Cohen (“Cohen”) and Debtor 

attended the Show Cause Hearing.

BACKGROUND

The Show Cause Order directed Cohen and the Cohen Law Firm, P.A. (the 

Mindy A. Mora, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on February 24, 2022.

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 1 of 11
2

“Cohen Firm”) to show cause why they should not be sanctioned for failing to properly 

represent Debtor’s interests in this Bankruptcy Case.1 Statements on the record by 

Attorney Josh Arthur (“Arthur”),2 Cohen, and Debtor at prior hearings caused the 

Court to question whether any attorney at the Cohen Firm obtained Debtor’s consent 

prior to filing the first amended plan (ECF No. 22) (the “Amended Plan”).3 The Court 

was troubled by Debtor’s claims that she was unaware of the Amended Plan until 

after confirmation and simply could not afford the confirmed plan payments.4 Once 

the Court reviewed the Amended Plan, the Court also became concerned that Debtor’s 

disposable income may have been improperly calculated.

After soliciting detailed information from Arthur, Cohen, and Debtor, the 

Court issued the Show Cause Order. The Show Cause Order included citations to two 

cases addressing the proper extent to which a debtor’s non-filing spouse’s income is 

included in the calculation of a debtor’s disposable income. See In re Quarterman, 342 

B.R. 647 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2006) and In re Campbell, Case No. 17-25246-LMI, 2019 

WL 722759 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Feb. 15, 2019). Because Quarterman and Campbell are 

not binding upon this Court, the Show Cause Order directed submission of additional 

relevant case law on the calculation issue. 

1 The Court directed issuance of the Show Cause Order to Cohen in his capacity as the named partner 

of the Cohen Firm and as the signatory on the Amended Plan.

2 Arthur is an associate at the Cohen Firm and was responsible for Debtor’s representation at various 

court hearings. 

3 The hearings occurred on November 16, 2021 and December 21, 2021.

4 Debtor consistently represented to the Court that she informed the Cohen Firm she could not pay in 

excess of $1,800 per month. The Amended Plan provided for Phase Two Plan Payments of $2,576.35 

per month. 

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 2 of 11
3

Cohen admitted that he did not review Quarterman or Campbell prior to the 

Show Cause Hearing. He also acknowledged that he had not performed or obtained

any additional case law research to support his calculations for Debtor’s Statement 

of Current Monthly Income and Calculation of Commitment Period (ECF No. 13, 

Official Form 122C-1) (“SMI”), Schedule J, or the Amended Plan. Although Cohen 

described the method by which he arrived at his calculations, he failed to do so in the 

context of prior case law. As a result, none of Cohen’s representations or arguments 

addressed the Court’s concerns regarding the applicability of Quarterman and

Campbell to Debtor’s Bankruptcy Case. 

ANALYSIS

The computation of Debtor’s current monthly income did not follow the 

methodology described in Quarterman and Campbell. Because Cohen’s calculation 

failed to limit spousal income to only that portion of the non-debtor spouse’s income 

used for household expenses, Debtor’s monthly income was overstated. Arthur and 

Cohen’s subsequent failure to discuss increased plan payments with Debtor and 

obtain her signature prior to filing the Amended Plan compounded and cemented the 

error.5

Calculation Issues

Debtor’s SMI included her non-filing spouse’s entire monthly income but only 

subtracted two monthly payments for which Debtor’s non-filing spouse was solely 

5 Debtor stated that she was rarely able to speak with an attorney at the Cohen Law Firm and instead 

dealt almost exclusively with paraprofessionals in her attempts to communicate regarding her case. 

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 3 of 11
4

responsible.6 This calculation created an inaccurate impression of available funds. 

Debtor’s SMI did not specify the portion of spousal income that was not regularly 

allocated to Debtor’s household expenses.7 Debtor’s Schedule J likewise failed to 

distinguish which household expenses were regularly paid by Debtor’s non-filing 

spouse to justify the inclusion of Debtor’s spouse’s entire income in the computation 

of Debtor’s current monthly income.8 

The end result of these calculation errors was that Debtor appeared to have 

significant untapped monthly income available for plan payments. This appearance 

led the Chapter 13 Trustee to object to confirmation absent modification of Debtor’s 

plan to increase the payments made for the benefit of unsecured creditors. In 

response to the Chapter 13 Trustee’s objections, Arthur submitted the Amended Plan. 

The Amended Plan increased Debtor’s Phase Two Plan Payments by $581.45, 

resulting in payments of $2,576.35 for months 6 to 60. This amount exceeded the 

Debtor’s actual ability to pay based upon her current monthly income, even taking 

into account any appropriate spousal contribution. See ECF No. 33, at 2; see also

Quarterman, 342 B.R. at 651 (“[B]ased upon the explicit language of section 101(10A), 

current monthly income does not include all the income of the non-debtor spouse, but 

rather only amounts expended on a regular basis for household expenses. If income 

6 See ECF No. 13, at p. 2, line 12 (total average monthly income, including spouse’s full monthly 

income), line 13 (itemizing and totaling two expenses attributable to spouse), and line 14 (subtracting 

line 13 from line 12). 

7 ECF No. 13 at p. 2 (¶ 13 “Calculate the marital adjustment”). 

8 Quarterman, 342 B.R. at 650-51; Campbell, 2019 WL 722759 at *2. Schedule J itemizes two expenses 

attributable to Debtor’s spouse, but those expenses likely did not fall within the definition of 

“household expenses”. ECF No. 12, p. 34 (¶ 17). 

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 4 of 11
5

is not (1) expended regularly (2) on household expenses, then it is not included in the 

debtor's current monthly income.”) (emphasis in original); Campbell, 2019 WL 

722759 at *2 (“[T]he income of the Debtor’s non-filing spouse is included in calculating 

the Debtor’s CMI to the extent her income is used on a regular basis for household 

expenses.”)

At this point, two unfortunate things occurred in tandem. First, Arthur and 

Cohen both failed to communicate with Debtor prior to submission of the Amended 

Plan to obtain her authorization, and, second, via confirmation of the Amended Plan, 

the increased payments became binding upon Debtor despite her lack of knowledge 

or express consent.9 This confluence of events would not have occurred if Arthur, 

Cohen, and the Cohen Firm had complied with the requirements of Local Rule 9011-

1(C). The fact that the Cohen Firm failed to communicate with Debtor about the 

Amended Plan and nonetheless submitted the Amended Plan for confirmation leads 

the Court to its next consideration, which is the absence of Debtor’s signature upon 

the Amended Plan. 

Signature Issues

Section 1322(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that “[t]he debtor may modify 

the plan at any time before confirmation....” 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a) (emphasis added). 

Local Rule 9011-1 sets forth procedures for filing documents with electronic 

signatures and provides, among other things, that a debtor’s attorney must: (i) verify 

9 The Court accepts Cohen’s representations on the record as an officer of the Court that no 

communication with Debtor occurred to ensure her consent to the Amended Plan prior to its filing, 

and that Debtor’s actual signature on the Amended Plan was never actually obtained. 

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 5 of 11
6

that the signer received the entire document(s) to be signed; (ii) communicate with 

the signer regarding the substance and purpose of the signed documents; (iii) receive 

back from the signer and be in possession of the entire document, including the 

signature page, which must contain either a digital or scanned image of the signed 

document; and (iv) obtain express authorization from the signer to file the document. 

While neither § 1322(a) nor Local Rule 9011-1 expressly state that an amended plan

must contain a debtor’s signature, both the Code provision and the Local Rule 

contemplate filing plan documents with the debtor’s full knowledge and consent.10

That did not happen here. 

Cohen stated that, in filing the Amended Plan, the Cohen Firm relied upon a 

limited power of attorney (the “POA”) contained in Debtor’s engagement letter (the 

“Engagement Letter”). Cohen and the Cohen firm asserted that the existence of the 

POA and the exigencies of the situation allowed filing the Amended Plan without 

Debtor’s knowledge or consent to the modification of the monthly plan payments.11

In his attempts to justify the actions of the Cohen Firm and its attorneys, 

Cohen contended that the POA facilitated protection of his clients’ interests by 

permitting filing of documents on an expedited basis when necessary. Cohen 

downplayed the absence of explicit consent to the plan changes by pointing out that 

10 At the Show Cause Hearing, Cohen suggested that Local Rule 9011-1 should be restricted solely to 

the documents listed in subsection (A). Even if the Court were to accept that subsection A contains 

language of exclusion rather than illustrative non-limiting examples, the plain language of Local Rule

9011-1(A) includes “amendments”. Certainly the Amended Plan would qualify under that term. 

11 The debtor signature line on the Amended Plan was blank, and Cohen’s electronic signature 

contained clarification that he had “permission to sign on Debtor(s)’ behalf”.

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 6 of 11
7

Debtor’s placed her initials next to the POA provision in the Engagement Letter. 

The Court is extremely concerned by the Cohen Firm’s implementation of a 

“representation without explanation” escape hatch provision in their form 

engagement letter because that practice invites abuse, as happened here. The Court 

can envision very limited, highly fact-specific situations in which filing documents on 

an expedited basis without a wet-ink signature might be appropriate, but those 

situations ought to be few and far between. 

The purported exigency here, however, was nothing more than the necessity of 

filing an amended plan after the Chapter 13 Trustee indicated at a regular motion 

calendar that the prior plan was not confirmable. This sort of situation is an entirely 

predictable, routine occurrence in chapter 13 practice. 

Local Rule 9011-1(C) requires counsel to obtain the client’s express consent to 

the substance of the document before filing it. It does so for a reason. Although it is 

at least conceivable that unique exigencies may require an expedited filing, no 

situation should surpass the essential requirement of communication with a client 

and receipt of express consent to act on behalf of that client. And, to turn the 

perspective around a bit, the requirement that an attorney seek written consent 

protects all involved, including the attorney. Possession of the client’s signature 

demonstrates that the filing attorney has functioned as the client’s representative 

rather than usurping the client’s role as decision-maker. 

Additional Considerations

At the Show Cause Hearing, Cohen clarified that his firm typically obtains

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 7 of 11
8

client consent prior to filing a document. Cohen further stated that although Cohen 

was listed as the signatory on the Amended Plan, Arthur was the attorney 

responsible for filing it. Cohen could not explain way Arthur did not follow the Cohen 

Firm’s usual practice of obtaining prior client consent.

Cohen also could not explain why he failed to read In re Quarterman and In re 

Campbell prior to the Show Cause Hearing or provide the Court with case law support 

for his methodology of calculation of Debtor’s household income. 

Finally, the Court would be remiss if it didn’t acknowledge one point that local 

practitioners will be sure to raise: chapter 13 practice is, for most attorneys, a highvolume practice. It requires attorneys to be efficient, effective advocates, and it can 

be difficult to manage all possible details for each case. The Court is aware of the 

challenges and demands of chapter 13 practice. That being said, the Local Rules and 

concepts of professional responsibility apply to all attorneys, regardless of their 

chosen practice area. Engaging in a volume practice does not entitle any attorney to 

neglect their basic duties as advocates for their clients. 

CONCLUSION

The attorneys at the Cohen Firm failed to undertake a satisfactory analysis in 

calculating the extent to which Debtor’s husband’s income was to be included in the 

calculation of Debtor’s current monthly income. Merely including two of Debtor’s 

spouse’s monthly expenses to compute the marital adjustment in the SMI was clearly 

insufficient, particularly in light of Debtor’s concerns that the calculation did not 

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 8 of 11
9

properly reflect her husband’s net income and non-household expenses.12 The Court 

concludes that Arthur, Cohen, and the Cohen Firm failed to properly represent 

Debtor by filing the Amended Plan without Debtor’s authorization.13

Having arrived at this conclusion, the Court believes that the actions and 

omissions in this Bankruptcy Case warrant the imposition of compensatory and 

coercive sanctions under 11 U.S.C. § 105 to ensure that Arthur, Cohen, and the Cohen 

Firm do not repeat their mistakes.14 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons as well as 

those stated on the record at the Show Cause Hearing, it is ORDERED that:

1. Cohen and the Cohen Firm are SANCTIONED in the amount of $2,875.95 

(the “Sanction”), which represents disbursements that the chapter 13 

trustee paid to Cohen and the Cohen firm under the Amended Plan for legal 

services rendered to Debtor. 

2. Cohen and the Cohen Firm are DIRECTED to pay the Sanction to Debtor 

within 10 days of the date of entry of this Order. Cohen shall file proof of 

such payment upon the docket in this Bankruptcy Case. 

12 The SMI calculation errors are glaring. Item 13 failed to account for normal and customary payroll 

deductions to Debtor’s spouse’s monthly gross income. The only adjustments listed are the non-filing 

spouse’s car payment and a minimum credit card payment. Yet, Cohen acknowledged at the Show 

Cause Hearing that the marital adjustment should have accounted for all of the expenses Debtor’s 

spouse regularly paid that were not for household expenses.

13 The Court ultimately dismissed Debtor’s case for failure to keep up with plan payments. See ECF 

No. 53.

14 In bankruptcy proceedings, 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) provides a bankruptcy court with power to “issue any 

order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.” 

11 U.S.C. § 105; Jove Eng'g, Inc. v. I.R.S., 92 F.3d 1539, 1546 (11th Cir. 1996) (citing Glatter v. Mroz 

(In re Mroz), 65 F.3d 1567, 1571-72 (11th Cir. 1995)). 

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 9 of 11
10

3. Cohen and the Cohen Firm are authorized to retain only the $1,000 

prepetition retainer.

4. Both Cohen and Arthur are each directed to take and complete five hours 

of continuing legal education courses in the area of bankruptcy or ethics 

within ninety (90) days of the date of this order. No later than fourteen (14) 

days after the date of completion of the courses, Cohen and Arthur must 

each file a notice certifying their attendance at the courses on the docket of

this Bankruptcy Case. Cohen and Arthur must concurrently send a copy of 

such certification to MAM_Chambers@flsb.uscourts.gov. 

5. To the extent that Arthur wishes to request a separate evidentiary hearing 

for the Court to reconsider his role in this Bankruptcy Case and/or the 

Court’s imposition of sanctions pursuant to this Order, Arthur must file an 

appropriate motion within ten (10) days of entry of this Order. 

6. The Court reserves jurisdiction over all matters arising from or relating to 

the implementation of this Order.

###

Copies to:

Brian J Cohen, Esq.

Josh Arthur, Esq.

The Cohen Law Firm, P.A.

1700 University Dr Suite 210

Coral Springs, FL 33071

Charlotte Lockhart

6591 Cobia Circle

Boynton Beach, FL 33437

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 10 of 11
11

Robin R. Weiner

POB 559007

Fort Lauderdale, FL 33355

Case 21-10643-MAM Doc 60 Filed 02/24/22 Page 11 of 11