Section 329 in the First Circuit

Attorney fee disclosure, reasonableness review, and disgorgement doctrine as applied across Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Puerto Rico.

Statutory Overview

11 U.S.C. section 329 imposes two duties on every attorney representing a debtor: (1) disclose all compensation paid or agreed to within one year before the petition (section 329(a), implemented by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016(b)); and (2) submit to a reasonableness review under section 329(b), with the court empowered to cancel the agreement or order the return of any excessive payment. The standard operates nationally, but circuits differ meaningfully in how strictly they enforce disclosure, whether they treat disgorgement as a sanction or a regulatory remedy, and whether they require proof of harm before ordering full disgorgement.

11 U.S.C. section 329(b): "If such compensation exceeds the reasonable value of any such services, the court may cancel any such agreement, or order the return of any such payment, to the extent excessive..."

This page collects the First Circuit's leading authorities on each prong, surveys the circuit's Chapter 11 and Subchapter V filing footprint, and ends with practical tips calibrated to the local bench and U.S. Trustee posture.

Leading Case Law in the First Circuit

The cases below are the ones most frequently cited in fee-review motions and U.S. Trustee filings across the circuit's bankruptcy districts. Status badges indicate whether the authority is binding (a circuit-court opinion) or persuasive (district, BAP, or bankruptcy-court opinion - or out-of-circuit authority that is routinely followed in-circuit).

Persuasive In re Engel, 124 F.3d 567 (3d Cir. 1997)

Cited in the First Circuit for the proposition that disclosure failure supports disgorgement even where services had value.

Persuasive In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 226 B.R. 331 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1998)

Frequently cited by First Circuit bankruptcy judges on attorney disclosure standards.

Persuasive In re Perrine, 369 B.R. 571 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2007)

Used in New England districts on source-of-funds disclosure.

Practitioners should always confirm currency on Westlaw or CourtListener; fee-review doctrine evolves through bankruptcy-court opinions faster than circuit-court opinions. Where the First Circuit has not spoken definitively, bankruptcy judges in the circuit frequently draw on Third Circuit (Engel), Ninth Circuit (Park-Helena), and Tenth Circuit (Stewart, Investment Bankers) authority.

Chapter 11 Filing Volume in the First Circuit

Across this circuit's bankruptcy districts, the Open Bankruptcy Project master dataset records 20 Chapter 11 cases, distributed as follows (district codes use the standard CM/ECF short form):

District CodeCh. 11 Cases
mabk19
nhbk1

Chapter 11 counts are a reasonable proxy for Subchapter V and complex business fee-review activity. Consumer Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 volume is much larger and is not shown here.

Fee-review activity is concentrated in districts with active U.S. Trustee fee-examiner programs and in courts that operate a standing order on attorney compensation. Volume alone does not predict the intensity of fee review: some low-volume districts apply section 329 more rigorously than high-volume districts because individual cases draw more judicial attention.

Practice Tips for the First Circuit

These tips are generalizations drawn from published opinions and U.S. Trustee bulletins; every district has local rules and standing orders that may supplement or displace them. Before filing any fee-related motion, pull the relevant local rules and the assigned judge's standing orders, and check whether the district has a published fee-guideline schedule (some districts publish presumptive caps for no-look consumer fees).

Related Resources