Low‐income, low‐asset debtors in the U.S. bankruptcy system

Abstract

AbstractThe United States' bankruptcy system faces a major problem: many consumers are too poor to file for bankruptcy, usually because they cannot afford the necessary attorney fees. Some consumers appear to spend months trying to save the funds to pay their attorneys, thus either delaying their bankruptcies or foregoing bankruptcy altogether when they fail to save enough money. Others file for repayment bankruptcy in order to pay attorney fees during the case, when liquidation bankruptcy is usually a better fit for consumers with low incomes and low asset levels. The most recent comprehensive bankruptcy reform, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), exacerbated these problems by implementing additional procedural requirements that resulted in attorneys raising their fees. These problems have led to calls for administrative bankruptcy, especially for low‐income, low‐asset (LILA)/no‐income, no‐asset (NINA) debtors. Administrative bankruptcy would make bankruptcy more accessible by lowering access costs, for example, by eliminating the need for consumers to hire attorneys. Administrative programs in the United States, however, have a history of long‐term decline, especially when these programs serve low‐income people. It has become a cliché that poor people's programs become poor programs. A better solution would be to eliminate the procedural requirements imposed by BAPCPA and simplify the decision consumers must make about which type of bankruptcy to use.