Robert J Roedl, 634 B.R. 777

Debtor Robert Roedl paid UpRight Law $1,247 in legal fees (July–Nov 2019) but the Chapter 7 petition was filed Dec 18, 2020 (13+ month delay).
U.S. Trustee moved to disgorge fees and impose sanctions (May 27, 2021), arguing counsel failed to reasonably investigate Debtor’s assets and omitted a 2013 Cub Cadet "Zero Turn" mower from the original schedules.
The Trustee relied on a public divorce record (judici.com) showing the mower was awarded to Roedl in a 2018 divorce judgment.
Counsel (Buch) submitted detailed intake materials: a 32‑page client interview, a Client Asset Information Worksheet listing specific "Lawn and Garden" items, and testimony that he specifically asked about a riding lawnmower and was told the client did not own one.
At his 2004 exam Roedl admitted he completed the Worksheet, failed to list the mower, and said he "just didn’t think about it;" his ex‑wife attended the intake meeting.
Court denied the U.S. Trustee’s motion, finding counsel’s investigation was reasonable under the circumstances and the omission resulted from the debtor’s lack of candor rather than counsel’s inadequate inquiry.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether counsel failed to perform a "reasonable investigation" under 11 U.S.C. §707(b)(4)(C),(D) such that fees should be disgorged or sanctions imposed	U.S. Trustee: counsel should have discovered the mower (public divorce record) and thus fees exceed reasonable value	Buch: performed extensive intake, specifically asked about riding mowers, client denied ownership, client completed asset worksheet omitting mower	Denied — court found counsel’s inquiry reasonable and non‑disclosure was due to debtor’s lack of candor
Whether counsel was required to search a public database (judici.com) to discover the asset	U.S. Trustee: a reasonable attorney would have checked public records and found the divorce award	Buch: reliance on client’s explicit denials and completed worksheet was reasonable; presence of ex‑wife at intake supports credibility of client statement	Denied — court declined to require searching judici.com here; reliance on client statements was permissible without hindsight

Matter of Geraci, 138 F.3d 314 (7th Cir. 1998) (§329 allows court to reduce/disgorge fees whenever compensation exceeds reasonable value)
In re Kayne, 453 B.R. 372 (9th Cir. BAP 2011) (discussing attorney certification duties under §707(b)(4))
In re Withrow, 405 B.R. 505 (1st Cir. BAP 2009) (objective, case‑by‑case standard for reasonable investigation under §707(b)(4))
In re Beinhauer, 570 B.R. 128 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2017) (analysis of reasonable investigation standard and lack of hindsight rule)
In re Seare, 493 B.R. 158 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2013) (reasonable‑investigation inquiry measured at time of filing without hindsight)
Cabell v. Petty, 810 F.2d 463 (4th Cir. 1987) (articulating objective standard: whether reasonable attorney in like circumstances could justify actions)