Advance Fee Collected for $1899+ despite law prohibiting action and knowing debtors were not ready to file within the next few months after first meeting, debtors wanted to prepay and secure counsel while they still had the resources but did not want to file or until after final verdict of HAMP Loan Modification was obtained.
Debtors were ProPer with past experience in BPP but was insecure about going forward with negotiating reaffirmations or Ch 13 plan without counsel. The firm baited and switched attorneys a few months later without allowing debtor the option to stay with firm or leave and collect refund for fee paid 4 months earlier. The firm assigned newly licensed inexperienced and unequipped lawyer who pressured, slammed, lied, and made mistakes. The attorney had undisclosed and unauthorized communications with debtors lender and interfered with debtors progress and status with lender, by prematurely filing with only one debtor's permission and given under duress due to her constant pressure.

The lawyer witheld documents and the official HAMP offer until 3 weeks after 341A hearing and repeated calls by debtor looking for the documents sent to firm by the lender, rather then sent to debtors.

The lawyer didn't tell defies about filing and sent official letter postmarked 10 days later but actually not received until more then 15 days later. Debtors were fortunate to learn of bankruptcy because only because of their ongoing communication with lender advocate. But were denied a request to dismiss case immediately and even in light of proof there was many errors in filing. Debtors were fortunate to know of Pacer service for obtaining info on case because lawyers never provided any copies of documents signed by debtors nor submitted the signed version but esubmitted without actual signatures, so debtors worry there was fraud.

Lastly she certified that debtors reaffirmed and that was not negotiated or discussed, in fact the firm sent a letter suggesting debtors don't reaffirm mortgage and ignore anything that comes from lender offering a reaffirmation, including not asking lender for an agreement which debtor did anyway on one occasion and lender ignored debtor request for reaffirmation agreement.

There is loss of credibility and hardship explanation because lawyer inadvertently left out the "D" in the abbreviation SSDI causing the lender to believe debtor was not being truthful in assertions of a disability and assume debtor was lying, on retirement benefits and therefore doubled the amount in determining gross monthly income for eligibility.