- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
John Kirk Shumpert In Re: Stephen H. Landy In Re: Doneice Cunningham Johnson
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
IN RE: JOHN KIRK SHUMPERT CASE NO.: 24-11641-SDM
DEBTOR CHAPTER 7
IN RE: STEPHEN H. LANDY CASE NO.: 24-11399-SDM
DEBTOR CHAPTER 7
IN RE: DONEICE CUNNINGHAM JOHNSON CASE NO.: 24-14079-SDM
DEBTOR CHAPTER 7
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART MOTIONS1
Before the Court are three identical Motion(s) to Examine Fees of Attorney and Other Relief -captioned
Chapter 7 cases. The Motions each seek review of the flat-fee retainers paid to the same law firm, The Law Office of Denvil Crowe , which represented all three Debtors. The UST
1
contends that the fees, ranging from $10,450 to $12,500, are excessive under 11 U.S.C. § 329(b).2 The UST further requests that the Court disgorge the excessive portion of those fees. The UST further asserts that the Firm failed to disclose the full amount of compensation received, as required by § 329(a) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016(b). Thus, providing an additional basis for disgorgement.
The
which involved substantial business-related debt, extensive preparation, and continued postpetition administration, including multiple § 341 meetings and on-going asset administration in two of the three cases. Counsel further argues that the flat-fee arrangements reflect the risks and demands of Chapter 7 practice and account for work not reflected on the docket. The Court conducted an initial hearing on June 3, 2025, and directed
to submit an itemization of time in each case. Following the submission of those materials and additional proceedings, a final hearing was held on January 22, 2026, after which the matter was taken under advisement.
failed to disclose the full amount of compensation received, as required by § 329(a) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016(b), which warrants disgorgement of the undisclosed portion discretion, the Court finds that a more limited remedy is appropriate under the circumstances, given the relatively small discrepancies, the absence of evidence of bad faith, and the value of the services provided. The Court further finds that the disclosed portion of the flat-fee retainers is
2
denied in part.
I. JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334, and the Standing Order of Reference entered by Chief Judge L.T. Senter on August 6, 1984. This matter is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) (matters concerning administration of the estate). Venue is proper in this District.
II. BACKGROUND
3
4
3
4
in Case No. 24-11399-SDM; )
5
5
6
7
6
in Case No. 24-11399-SDM; Dkt. #14 in Case No. 24-14079
7
in Case No. 24-11399-SDM; Dkt. #15 in Case No. 24-14079
6
8
8
9
9
9
10
11
10
11
11
12
13
14
12
12
16
17
18
19
20
Alert