| ABI

May 9, 2025

In ‘13,’ a Creditor Wanted Debtors’ Counsels’ Fees to Come Last, Not First

Chicago’s Bankruptcy Judge Donald Cassling nixed an idea that would have made chapter 13 unpalatable for debtors’ counsel.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur rem aliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet consectetur, adipisicing elit. Soluta dolorem consequuntur corporis pariatur remaliquam similique animi fugiat iure explicabo eius omnis minima labore natus, repellat aut odio fuga vero.

ABI MEMBERS ONLY

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign in using your ABI Member credentials.

Not a Member yet? Try Us Out!

Sign up to receive Rochelle's Daily Wire and try out our membership for 30 days. When you do — you'll see why our members "Think ABI First."

Learn More

Opinion Link

View Opinion

https://abi-opinions.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/dewayne+Jackson.pdf

Case Details

Case Citation

In re Jackson, 24-18391 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. April 25, 2025)

Case Name

In re Jackson

Case Type

Consumer

Court

7th Circuit

Illinois

Illinois Northern District

Bankruptcy Tags

Claims

Plan Confirmation

Professional Compensation/Fees

Consumer Bankruptcy

Comments

Submitted by Valerie Hamilton on May 9, 2025

Correction suggested to this sentence: "...the IRS submitted “that unsecured creditors with priority claims are not ‘unsecured creditors’ within the meaning of Section 1325(b)(1)(B).”" This is the opposite of the IRS's position. It was the foundation of the City's position, and the IRS urged the court to reject it.