LAMIE v. UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
No. 02-693
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 10, 2003-Decided January 26, 2004
540 U.S. 526
Thomas C. Goldstein argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were John M. Lamie, pro se, Amy Howe, G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., John A. E. Pottow, and Craig Goldblatt.
Lisa S. Blatt argued the cause for respondent. With her on the brief were Solicitor General Olson, Assistant Attorney General Keisler, and Deputy Solicitor General Hungar.
Section 330(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code,
I
In 1994 Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 (Act), 108 Stat. 4106. The subject of professional fees was addressed and comprehensive changes were made. See 3 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 330.LH[5], pp. 330-75 to 330-76 (rev. 15th ed. 2003). Most of the changes served to clarify the standards for the award of professional fees; but various courts disagree over the proper interpretation of the portion of the statute relevant to this dispute, concerning attorney‘s fees.
The Act replaced the predecessor section to the one in issue here. Compare 108 Stat. 4130-4131 (§ 224(b) of the Act amending
“(a) After notice to any parties in interest and to the United States trustee and a hearing, and subject to sec-
tions 326, 328, and 329 of this title, the court may award to a trustee, to an examiner, to a professional person employed under section 327 or 1103 of this title, or to the debtor‘s attorney— “(1) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered by such trustee, examiner, professional person, or attorney . . . and by any paraprofessional persons employed by such trustee, professional person, or attorney . . . ; and
“(2) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.”
Ibid. (emphasis added to highlight text later deleted).
Pursuant to the 1994 Act,
“(a)(1) After notice to the parties in interest and the United States Trustee and a hearing, and subject to sections 326, 328, and 329, the court may award to a trustee, an examiner, a professional person employed under section 327 or 1103—
“(A) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary services rendered by the trustee, examiner, professional person, or attorney and by any paraprofessional person employed by any such person; and
“(B) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.”
As can be noted, the 1994 enactment‘s principal, substantive alteration was its deletion of the five words at the end of what was
The deletion created an apparent legislative drafting error. It left current
The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Eleventh Circuits, when asked to interpret current
This interpretive divide became relevant to petitioner in his representation of Equipment Services, Inc. (ESI). ESI retained petitioner to prepare, file, and prosecute a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding on its behalf. He did so, all the
In due course petitioner filed an application seeking fees under
Petitioner unsuccessfully sought reversal of the Bankruptcy Court‘s determination, first from the District Court, see In re Equipment Services, Inc., 260 B. R. 273 (WD Va. 2001), then from the Court of Appeals, see 290 F. 3d 739 (CA4 2002). Both courts concluded the plain language of
II
Petitioner argues that the existing statutory text is ambiguous and so requires us to consult legislative history to determine whether Congress intended to allow fees for services rendered by a debtor‘s attorney in a Chapter 7 proceeding, where that attorney is not authorized under
“[e]ither Congress inadvertently omitted the ‘debtor‘s attorney’ from the ‘payees’ list, on which the court of appeals relied, or it inadvertently retained the reference to the attorney in the latter, ‘payees’ list.” Brief for Petitioner 17.
Similarly, with respect to the missing conjunction “or” he says,
“[t]here is no apparent reason, other than a drafting error, that Congress would have rewritten the statute to produce a grammatically incorrect provision.” Ibid.
This is the analysis followed by the Courts of Appeals that hold the statute is ambiguous. See In re Top Grade Sausage, supra, at 129 (noting in its search for ambiguity that “[p]rior to amendment, it was undisputed that the repetition of officers in
The starting point in discerning congressional intent is the existing statutory text, see Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 438 (1999), and not the predecessor statutes. It is well established that “when the statute‘s language is plain, the sole function of the courts—at least where the disposition required by the text is not absurd—is to enforce it according to its terms.” Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U. S. 1, 6 (2000) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 241 (1989), in turn quoting Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 485 (1917)). So we begin with the present statute.
A
The statute is awkward, and even ungrammatical; but that does not make it ambiguous on the point at issue. In its first part, the statute authorizes an award of compensation to one of three types of persons: trustees, examiners, and
The missing conjunction “or” does not change our conclusion. The Government points to numerous federal statutes that inadvertently lack a conjunction. They are read, none-
Subsection (A)‘s nonparalleled fourth category of persons who can render compensable services does not cloud the statute‘s meaning. Petitioner reasons that since the section is a single sentence, and since it appears to strive for parallelism between those authorized to receive fees and those whose services are compensable, there is an ambiguity as to what “attorney” in
Subsection (A)‘s “attorney,” however, can be read in a straightforward fashion to refer to those attorneys whose fees are authorized by
It must be acknowledged that, under our reading of the text, the word “attorney” in subsection (A) may well be surplusage. Subsection (A)‘s reference to
B
The plain meaning that
These arguments overstate the effect of
Compensation for debtors’ attorneys working on Chapter 7 bankruptcies, moreover, is not altogether prohibited. Sections 327 and 330, taken together, allow Chapter 7 trustees to engage attorneys, including debtors’ counsel, and allow courts to award them fees. See
If we add to all this the apparent sound functioning of the bankruptcy system under the plain meaning approach, petitioner‘s arguments become unconvincing. Seeming order has attended the rule‘s application for five years in the Fifth Circuit and for four years in the Eleventh Circuit. See In re American Steel Product, Inc., 197 F. 3d 1354 (CA11 1999); In re Pro-Snax Distributors, Inc., 157 F. 3d 414 (CA5 1998). It appears to be routine for debtors to pay reasonable fees for legal services before filing for bankruptcy to ensure compliance with statutory requirements. See generally Collier Compensation, Employment and Appointment of Trustees and Professionals in Bankruptcy Cases ¶ 3.02[1], p. 3-2 (2002) (“In the majority of cases, the debtor‘s counsel will accept an individual or a joint consumer chapter 7 case only after being paid a retainer that covers the ‘standard fee’ and the cost of filing the petition“). So our interpretation accords with common practice. Section 330(a)(1) does not
C
Petitioner‘s argument stumbles on still harder ground in the face of another canon of interpretation. His interpretation of the Act—reading the word “attorney” in
Our unwillingness to soften the import of Congress’ chosen words even if we believe the words lead to a harsh outcome is longstanding. It results from “deference to the supremacy of the Legislature, as well as recognition that Congressmen typically vote on the language of a bill.” United States v. Locke, 471 U. S. 84, 95 (1985) (citing Richards v. United States, 369 U. S. 1, 9 (1962)).
Adhering to conventional doctrines of statutory interpretation, we hold that
III
Though we find it unnecessary to rely on the legislative history behind the 1994 enactment of
Petitioner, for instance, cites evidence supporting the conclusion that a scrivener‘s error obscures what was Congress’ real intent. For over 100 years debtors’ attorneys have been considered by Congress and the courts to be an integral part of the bankruptcy process. See Bankruptcy Act of 1898, ch. 541, §§ 59(d) and 64(b), 30 Stat. 561, 563. See also In re Kross, 96 F. 816 (SDNY 1899). It is fair to doubt that Congress would so rework their longstanding role without announcing the change in the congressional record. Cf. Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U. S. 213, 221 (1998) (“We . . . will not read the Bankruptcy Code to erode past bankruptcy practice absent a clear indication that Congress intended such a departure” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
The legislative processes behind the change also lend some support to petitioner‘s claim. In 1994 the original proposed draft of new
There are other aspects of the legislative record, however, that undermine this interpretation. These considerations suggest Congress may have intended the change the scrivener worked. For example, amendment 1645 was part of a reform Act designed to curtail abuses in fee awards, according to statements by the amendment‘s sponsor. See 140 Cong. Rec., at 28753 (statement of Sen. Metzenbaum). These abuses were not ghosts seen only by Congress. Some bankruptcy courts had reached the same conclusion. See, e. g., In re NRG Resources, Inc., 64 B. R. 643 (Bkrtcy. Ct. WD La. 1986). The deletion at issue furthered this reform by ensuring that Chapter 7 debtors’ attorneys would receive no estate compensation absent the trustee‘s authorization of their work. This objective is not inconsistent with the interest of involving debtors’ attorneys in bankruptcy proceedings. As noted, the Act still allows debtors’ attorneys to be compensated in different ways. See supra, at 536-539.
Amendment 1645, viewed in its entirety, gives further reason to think Congress may have intended the change. The amendment added a new section that authorizes fee awards
If Congress’ action does not prove the point, the House of Representatives’ inaction may. The House passed the Act after having the deletion, as well as its impact, called to its attention. See Bankruptcy Reform: Hearing before the Subcommittee on Economic and Commercial Law of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 551 (1994). The National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys (NACBA), which represents those lawyers most likely to be affected by
These competing interpretations of the legislative history make it difficult to say with assurance whether petitioner or the Government lays better historical claim to the congressional intent. The alert to the change in policy was given, to be sure, before the House passed the final version, but that particular circumstance cannot bear too much weight. The alert was not the subject of testimony from any witness at the congressional hearing. It consisted of but two sentences contained within 472 pages of written statements delivered to the legislative subcommittee for its August 17,
These uncertainties illustrate the difficulty of relying on legislative history here and the advantage of our determination to rest our holding on the statutory text.
*
If Congress enacted into law something different from what it intended, then it should amend the statute to conform it to its intent. “It is beyond our province to rescue Congress from its drafting errors, and to provide for what we might think . . . is the preferred result.” United States v. Granderson, 511 U. S. 39, 68 (1994) (concurring opinion). This allows both of our branches to adhere to our respected, and respective, constitutional roles. In the meantime, we must determine intent from the statute before us. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
JUSTICE STEVENS, concurring in the judgment, joined by JUSTICE SOUTER and JUSTICE BREYER, concurring.
As the majority recognizes, ante, at 539-540, a leading bankruptcy law treatise concluded that the 1994 amendments to