In the January/February 2007 issue, Maria Ann Milano's article titled "Involuntary bankruptcy: The end has come," concludes that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act has effectively (and inadvertently) abrogated the right of creditors to commence an involuntary bankruptcy against an individual debtor. The proposition set forth by Ms. Milano is that the Bankruptcy Code's new requirements for individual debtors now impose credit counseling as a statutory predicate to eligibility for bankruptcy. She correctly points out that Section 109(h) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that "an individual may not be a debtor" unless the requisite credit counseling is obtained in advance of the bankruptcy filing.

The argument advanced by this isolated reading of the statute is that individuals can, under the new law, avoid being subjected to an involuntary bankruptcy case if they "only stay away from credit counselors." However, the statute does not end there and must be construed in its entirety (and with reference to the purposes for which it was enacted). Section 109(h) further provides that individuals may not be debtors absent the satisfaction of the credit counseling requirement in cases where the petition is filed "by such individual." The proper construction of the statute is that the credit counseling requirement only applies in situations in which it is the individual debtor that files the bankruptcy petition (i.e., a voluntary case). Any other construction would be inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statute, and render the involuntary provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (i.e., Section 303) now inapplicable in most individual cases.

There is certainly no suggestion in the legislative history of the BAPCPA or the nearly 10 years of debates that Congress intended to dispense with pre-amendment practice and provide individual debtors with a shield against involuntary bankruptcy filings. At least one court has rejected the argument that the credit counseling requirement applies in involuntary cases. See, e.g., In re Sadler, BKY Case No. 06-10091-FRM (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2006) [docket entry no. 28].

— George H. Singer
Minneapolis

Regarding female partners in firms, the "Snap Judgments" column (November/December 2006 issue) states that "the percentage of female partners in firms has grown only 4 percent in a decade, from 13 percent in 1995 to 17 percent in 2005."

Actually, the percentage growth is a sizable 31 percent. The definition of a percent increase means that the difference in percents is divided by the old percent figure: (17% - 13%) / (13%) = 31%.

Strictly speaking, if the percentage went from 13 percent to 17 percent, then the representation of female partners in firms has either "grown only 31 percent in a decade" or "grown only 4 percentage points in a decade." But not a 4 percent increase—a 4 percent increase would mean that the percentage figure in 2005 would have been 13.52 percent. A 4-percentage point increase does not sound like much, but a 31 percent increase does.

This is in no way meant to minimize the author's point—the underrepresentation is clearly an issue. My issue is just the math. Yes, I was an engineering undergrad student (no slide rules, but used computers when they had tape and punch cards!).

—Ross McLeod
Third year law student
Northeastern University School of Law

I was pleased to see the article "No, a paralegal is not a lawyer" in the January/February 2007 issue of Business Law Today. The author raised many important issues related to ethical obligations that arise when working with paralegals. I would like to note, however, a resource that was not, but should have been mentioned in the sidebar, namely "The Legal Assistant's Practical Guide to Professional Responsibility" (2nd Edition). This book is published by the ABA Center for Professional Responsibility, which is the acknowledged national leader in its area, providing a variety of services and products to ABA members, including its Ethics Research Service (see www.abanet.org/cpr/ethicsearch/home.html). Information on this book and all other Center publications is available at www.abanet.org/cpr/pubs/home.html.

— Art Garwin
Professionalism Counsel
ABA Center for Professional Responsibility

With regard to "Getting Legal with Paralegals," (January/February 2007 issue), I felt the need to write you what was in my heart.

Although the Professional Paralegal certification offered by NALS, "the association for legal professionals" (www.nals.org) is not as well recognized, it will measure up with either of the two paralegal certifications mentioned in your article. NALS' PP certification requires an individual to pass an 8-hour exam that covers information on written communications, legal knowledge and skills, ethics and judgment skills, and substantive law.

I am currently a legal secretary and have obtained my advanced certification for legal professionals (PLS), and am required to obtain 75 hours of CLE over a 5-year period in order to be recertified. Our PP recertification requires 75 hours of CLE as well, although it's more specific in what CLE will qualify as approved hours. Currently, a recertifying PP will need a minimum of 50 hours on substantive areas, a minimum of 5 hours on ethics, and a maximum of 20 hours on other areas.

I feel that certification creates an advantage for the individual, since "knowledge is power." Going through the study sessions needed to pass the exam results in a wealth of knowledge whether you become a PP, CLA/CP, or a Registered Paralegal.

I personally believe the push should be for attorneys to require their legal secretaries, legal assistants and paralegals to take a certain amount of CLE every year, because it shows that they are interested in staying on the cutting edge of new trends, desire to learn more, and are capable of handling advanced tasks. Legal secretaries are being forced to learn more to remain a viable part of the firm, because young attorneys are coming in knowing the basics. Having both legal secretary and paralegal qualities will eventually become essential, because paying a legal secretary top dollar for administrative duties will be recognized as a poor use of funds. As I always tell my young attorneys, "If it's not practicing law, I should be doing it for you."

— Tina Boone Certified PLS
tlb@h3gm.com