Lead Counsel independently verifies Chapter 11 Bankruptcy attorneys in Cambridge by conferring with Massachusetts bar associations and conducting annual reviews to confirm that an attorney practices in their advertised practice areas and possesses a valid bar license for the appropriate jurisdictions.
It is important that prior to filing for bankruptcy you consult with a skilled chapter 11 bankruptcy attorney who can help decide what type of bankruptcy is right for you. Furthermore, a Cambridge bankruptcy attorney can walk you through the process of filing chapter 11 bankruptcy.
During a chapter 11 bankruptcy, otherwise known as a “reorganization” bankruptcy, a debtor remains in control of its operations and is subject to the oversight and jurisdiction of the court. Chapter 11 allows the debtor to acquire new financing on favorable terms by giving new lenders first priority. Chapter 11 bankruptcy also allows debtors to be protected from litigation by putting it on hold. For more information on what happens during a chapter 11 bankruptcy and how bankruptcy can help you, contact a chapter 11 bankruptcy attorney today.
In legal practice, experience matters. An experienced attorney will likely have handled issues similar to yours many, many times. Therefore, after listening to your situation, the attorney should have a reasonable idea of the time line for a case like yours and the likely resolution.
The goal of an initial consultation is to find an attorney you are comfortable working with and someone who can help you understand your options under the law. Seek to understand the relevant legal experience the attorney brings to your case. While it is not realistic to expect an attorney to resolve your legal issue during an initial consultation, you should gain a level of comfort with his/her ability to do so. A good consultation can clarify issues, raise pertinent questions and considerations for your case, and help you make an informed decision towards resolving your legal issue.
Personal jurisdiction – Requirement that a particular court have authority over a person, in order to bind that person to the judgment of the court, based on minimum contacts. International Shoe Co v. Washington is a landmark Supreme Court case outlining the scope of a state court’s reach in personal jurisdiction.