Jon Kyl: “The key point here is to simply hold the attorney responsible for the costs of a hearing. That is all we are talking…”

“The key point here is to simply hold the attorney responsible for the costs of a hearing. That is all we are talking about. It is either going to be the attorney or it is going to be the people who are owed money in a bankruptcy, or even the debtor, to be responsible for the costs of that hearing in the event the attorney has made a wrong filing here, a filing that was not substantially justified. So, if the attorney can establish that what he did was substantially justified in putting his client into chapter 13 bankruptcy as opposed to chapter 7, then he has no responsibility here and would have no liability for the costs of the hearing. But if it turns out that he was not substantially justified in doing that, then this would permit the court to assess the cost of bringing the motion and having the hearing against that lawyer. That is all we are talking about here. In view of the fact that the National Bankruptcy Commission has been very concerned about these bankruptcy mills, this is a legitimate concern and a way to avoid this kind of mistake from occurring. It puts the responsibility where the responsibility ought to lie. I support the position of the Senator from Iowa in urging opposition to the Feingold amendment.”