Last week, I had the opportunity to attend the first "bench/bar" conference for Bankruptcy Judges and attorneys. It was held in San Antonio, Texas, so the drive was easy and the surroundings, once there, were excellent. These seminars have become popular with various other bar associations, but this was the first state wide one held only for the Bankruptcy Judges in Texas and those who practice in their Courts. It was a great success. All except two of the Judges were in attendance. As you can imagine, there was much talk of the new bankruptcy law (you might also be able to imagine the comments, both from the Judges and lawyers about this new and very unpopular law!). The most interesting issue which was discussed though related to the subject of attorneys fees and agreed orders. Specifically, Judge Isgur (a new-ish Judge in Houston) stated that when he is presented with an agreed order lifting the automatic stay on a car, for example, and it includes an award of attorneys fees for the lender's counsel -- but the value of the car is less than the amount of the debt, then he will not sign that order. In fact, he has issued non-montary sanctions against a creditor's attorney who did just that. Here is a link to the case authored by Judge Isgur: http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/courtweb/pdf/B05TXSC/04-08717.PDF However, coming down on the other side of this issue was Judge Rhodes (a new-ish Judge in Plano) who said that as long as there was appropriate notice of the agreement and no one objected, then she would sign those orders. This has been the general way that Judges have handled this situation in the past. Judge Rhodes' thinking was that there was a bargain between the creditor and the debtor, which included a total payment of "x" dollars and if the parties wanted to split that payment so that some amount went to the creditor's attorney, then so long as there was notice and no one objected, then she would sign that type of agreed order, despite the language of the Code which states that attorneys fees are allowed where the value of the collateral is higher than the amount of the debt. Mike