The bank lobby finally got is way in Congress with the Bankruptcy Abuse Preventon and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Hell, you would’ve had to have been living under a rock in October 2005, not to have noticed the flurry of bankruptcy filings made before the deadline of the new Act.
From a collection attorney perspective, the Act is really cool.

The Act introduced a new “means test.” Essentially, this test is to make sure that a debtor who can pay back some of portion of his debts, is required to do so. The means test does away with the presumption that a Chapter 7 debtor is entitled to a discharged unless substantial abuse is proven. Now, under the Act, the debtor’s case is either dismissed or converted to a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, if the debtor fails the means test.
Interestingly, if not scary, is the fact that a debtor’s attorney now must certify the correctness of the information on the debtor’s bankruptcy petition. Congress has blurred the line between an attorney as an advocate and an attorney whose credibility is at stake with his client’s petition. While I applaud Congress for tightening the bankrutpcy laws to prevent abuse, I am deeply disturbed that an attorney must now personally vouch for his client’s credibility. With the statutory dispatch of this distinction in an attorney’s role in the bankruptcy arena, the question becomes, where else might this distinction now appear? Are you concerned? I am.