Deborah Jane Waltrip

1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
In re:
Deborah Jane Waltrip,
Debtor.
Case No.: 24-00737
Chapter 13
Related: ECF 109
ORDER REGARDING
APPLICATION FOR COMPENSATION
The applicant seeks approval of $4,607.00 in attorney’s fees for work
performed in a debtor’s chapter 13 case. The chapter 13 trustee objects,
arguing that the applicant improperly withdrew the fees from its client
trust account before earning them and that the applicant’s paralegal work
was unsupervised.
Date Signed:
November 21, 2025
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 1 of 11

2
I. 	Background
A. The Presumptive Fee Process
All fees for a chapter 13 debtors’ attorney are subject to bankruptcy
court review for reasonableness.1 Ordinarily, counsel must file a fee
application with detailed timesheets that reflect hours actually spent on the
case and the attorney’s hourly rate. The court considers the application at a
noticed hearing.
But like many courts we have established a streamlined procedure
adopting the use of presumptive fees in chapter 13 cases. Prior to
commencing a chapter 13 case, the debtor and the debtor’s attorney agree
to a “Chapter 13 Rights, Responsibilities and Fee Agreement” (the “Fee
Agreement”).2 As its title suggests, this agreement outlines the rights and
responsibilities of both parties and specifies how the attorney will be paid
throughout the case. Namely, the parties may choose either a standard fee
application or a “presumptive fee.”
1 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(B).
2 Local Form H2016R.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 2 of 11

3
An attorney who accepts the presumptive fee does not need to file a
fee application accompanied by timesheets. Under the presumptive fee, the
parties agree to a flat fee of $5,000.00 for the pre- and post-petition services
outlined in Part A-2 and A-4 of the Fee Agreement.3 These tasks encompass
all services typically required in a chapter 13 case, such as preparing and
explaining required documents, advising the debtor, filing and modifying
plans, responding to objections and stay motions, providing other
necessary services, and communicating with the debtor throughout the
case. The court approves the presumptive fee in the order confirming the
chapter 13 plan, and counsel is entitled to immediate payment of the entire
presumptive fee (even though it covers certain post-confirmation services
that counsel has not yet rendered).
The presumptive fee is not an hourly fee. Rather, it is a flat fee for
specified services. It is also not a retainer deposit to secure an hourly fee.
But an attorney “may request a reasonable amount of funds from the
debtor for deposit in the attorneys’ client trust account to prepay the
3 ECF 6, Local Form H2016R at 2, 4.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 3 of 11

4
attorney fees.” The attorney may withdraw funds from the trust account
before the petition is filed “for services completed up to that point.”4 After
the petition is filed, the attorney may not withdraw any funds from the
trust account without court approval.5
An attorney who seeks compensation for additional services not
covered by the presumptive fee, such as certain types of preconfirmation
contested matters and certain services rendered more than a year after plan
confirmation, must file a standard fee application.6
This presumptive fee procedure is consistent with the Local
Bankruptcy Rule (“LBR”) 2016-1(g)(4), providing that:
[u]nless fully earned and withdrawn from a client trust account
prior to the filing of the petition, any funds paid to the attorney
by or on behalf of the debtor for services in or in connection
with the chapter 13 case must remain in a client trust account
pending entry of a court order approving the compensation.
The procedure is also consistent with the Hawaii Rules of
Professional Conduct (“HRPC”) stating that “[f]ee payments received by a
4 Id. at 5.
5 Id.
6 Id. at 7.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 4 of 11

5
lawyer before legal services have been rendered are presumed to be
unearned and shall be held in a trust account.”7
The Ninth Circuit has held that presumptive fee procedures like ours
are consistent with the Bankruptcy Code.8
B. Factual Background
Deborah Waltrip filed a petition for chapter 13 relief on August 12,
2024, with Cain Herren & McKelvey, ALC (the “applicant”) as her counsel.9
At the commencement of the case, Ms. Waltrip and the applicant signed
the Fee Agreement, agreeing to the $5,000.00 presumptive fee for standard
services.10 Ms. Waltrip had paid the full $5,000.00, and the applicant
deposited it into the client trust account, prior to the filing.11
On or before the petition date, the applicant transferred $4,960.00
from Ms. Waltrip’s client trust account to the applicant’s operating
7 HRPC Rule 1.5(b).
8 Id; Eliapo v. Devin Durham–Burk; U.S. Trustee (In re Eliapo), 468 F.3d 592, 598–600 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding
that there is “nothing in § 330 that prevents a bankruptcy court from issuing and then relying on
guidelines establishing presumptive fees for routine Chapter 13 cases”).
9 ECF 1.
10 ECF 6, Local Form H2016R.
11 ECF 1 at 33.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 5 of 11

6
account.12 The applicant paid the filing fee, credit counseling fee, and
debtor education fee and kept the balance of $4,607.00 for its attorneys’
fees.13
Between January 31, 2025, and June 10, 2025, the applicant received
four post-petition payments totaling $1,900.00 from Ms. Waltrip.14 For each
payment, the applicant filed a corresponding supplemental disclosure of
compensation.15
After several unsuccessful attempts to confirm a plan and persistent
opposition from a creditor, the applicant moved to withdraw as counsel on
July 7, 2025.16 The following day, the applicant refunded Ms. Waltrip’s
post-petition payments of $1,900.00.17 At the hearing on August 5, 2025, the
applicant cited irreconcilable disagreements with Ms. Waltrip as the basis
for withdrawal.18 The court granted the motion, subject to the applicant
remitting $4,607.00 to the chapter 13 trustee and filing a fee application
12 Id.
13 Id.
14 ECF 86 at 4; ECF 46; ECF 49; ECF 64; ECF 73.
15 Id; Local Form H2016B.
16 ECF 77.
17 ECF 86.
18 ECF 102.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 6 of 11

7
within 30 days of the order’s entry.19
The applicant timely filed a fee application on September 8, 2025,
requesting $4,607.00.20 This court held a hearing on October 29, 2025. David
Cain appeared for the applicant, and Bradley Tamm appeared for the
chapter 13 trustee.
The trustee objects to the fee application, arguing that the applicant
cannot withdraw the entire advance fee upon filing the petition because
this violates the terms of the Fee Agreement and LBR 2016-1(g).21 Further,
the trustee asserts that fees should not be awarded for paralegal services
when they were not rendered under the direct supervision of a licensed
attorney. The trustee argues the court should deny the fee application in its
entirety.22
In reply to the trustee’s objection, the applicant contends that the
$4,607.00 was a retainer intended to cover the duration of the debtor’s
19 ECF 103 at 2.
20 ECF 109.
21 ECF 111 at 5.
22 Id. at 9.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 7 of 11

8
case.23 The applicant also notes that while the estimated post-petition fees
in Ms. Waltrip’s case were approximately $4,000.00, the applicant refunded
all of Ms. Waltrip’s $1,900.00 post-petition payments.24 The applicant
further asserts that the paralegal’s work was performed under the direct
supervision of a licensed attorney and did not constitute the unauthorized
practice of law.25 Lastly, the applicant proposes submitting an amended fee
application or proposed order excluding $1,020.00 in paralegal fees, thus
seeking approval of a reduced total of $3,587.00.26
II. 	Discussion
A. The Applicant Prematurely Withdrew the Deposit from Its
Client Trust Account
The applicant incorrectly characterizes the $4,607.00 portion of the
presumptive fee as a retainer that “lasts throughout the debtor’s
completion of the case.”27 That characterization is mistaken. As explained
above, the presumptive fee is a flat fee, not an hourly fee. If an attorney
23 ECF 113 at 2.
24 Id. at 6.
25 Id. at 7.
26 Id.
27 ECF 113 at 2.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 8 of 11

9
agrees to the presumptive fee, the attorney may withdraw any prepetition
deposit before filing the petition only to the extent that the attorney has
completed the services covered by the presumptive fee. This amount might
or might not correspond with the number of hours the attorney has
expended to date. For example, if the attorney has completed half of the
work covered by the presumptive fee by the petition date, the attorney
could withdraw no more than half of the presumptive fee, even if the
number of hours spent by the attorney on the case multiplied by the
attorneys’ hourly rate is more than half of the amount deposited.
According to the applicant’s timesheets, the applicant completed only
some of the tasks in Part A-2, which cover pre-petition work, and had not
begun any of the tasks required under Part A-4 at the time of the
withdrawal.28 The $4,607.00 withdrawn by the applicant represents more
than 90 percent of the total presumptive fee. To properly withdraw that
amount under the Fee Agreement, the applicant would have needed to
complete more than 90 percent of the required services in Ms. Waltrip’s
28 ECF 109 at 3-5; ECF 6, Local Form H2016R at 2, 4.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 9 of 11

10
case. That level of completion is not possible before the petition is filed.
While the applicant was entitled to withdraw some of the fees
associated with the work they completed under Part A-2, the applicant was
not entitled to withdraw as much as $4,607.00 at that stage of the case.29
B. No Evidence of Unauthorized Practice of Law
Neither the trustee nor Ms. Waltrip has presented convincing
evidence that the applicant’s paralegal engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law.30 The absence of billed attorney time entries does not, by
itself, indicate a lack of supervision. While it is good practice for an
attorney to document all time spent on a case, whether billed or not, the
absence of such entries does not demonstrate that supervision did not
occur. There is no convincing evidence that the paralegal acted
unsupervised. Perhaps more importantly, I am convinced that all of the
29 ECF 111 at 6. It is clear from the record that the applicant devoted substantial time to the case after
filing the petition. But the applicant does not argue that it is entitled to compensation for those post-
petition services or explain why it is entitled to the presumptive fee even though no plan was confirmed.
It is also worth noting that the applicant should not have requested Ms. Waltrip’s $1,900.00 post-
petition payments. ECF 36. The applicant states that these post-petition payments were applied to
research, review, and responses to a creditor’s motion for relief from stay, objections to the amended
plan, and court appearances. Id. at 2. But these services are covered by Part A-4 of the Fee Agreement, so
the presumptive fee covers them. The applicant should not have collected these amounts from Ms.
Waltrip and appropriately refunded those payments to her.
30 ECF 111; ECF 115.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 10 of 11

11
services provided by the applicant, including by the paralegal, were
competently performed.
III. 	Conclusion
I find that the reduced amount proposed by the applicant represents
a reasonable award, although not for the reasons advanced by the
applicants.
The applicant proposes a $1,020.00 reduction to account for a portion
of the paralegal’s time entries. But I have rejected the contention that the
paralegal was not properly supervised, and I have found that her work was
competent.
But a reduction in about the same amount is an appropriate response
to the applicant’s premature withdrawal of funds from the client trust
account. Accordingly, I will reduce the applicant’s fee by $1,000.00, and the
applicant is entitled to receive $3,607.00.
END OF ORDER
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00737 Dkt # 119 Filed 11/21/25 Page 11 of 11