Methodology Overview
All research published on 1328f.org is built on publicly available court data using reproducible methods. This page describes our data sources, analytical approach, and quality controls.
Data Sources
FJC Integrated Database
The Federal Judicial Center's Integrated Database contains case-level records for all federal bankruptcy filings. We use the Chapter 13 subset (FY2008-2024), covering approximately 4.9 million cases across all 94 federal bankruptcy districts.
Fields used: filing date, termination date, disposition code, prior filing indicator, chapter, district.
PACER Case Locator
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records system provides attorney-level case data. We use PCL CSV exports to identify attorney-case associations, enabling per-attorney outcome analysis. Coverage: 56,256+ Chapter 13 cases in target districts.
Fields used: case number, filing date, disposition, attorney name, court, chapter.
CourtListener RECAP Archive
The Free Law Project's RECAP archive provides free access to millions of PACER documents. We use the CL API for docket-level analysis, attorney career tracking, and cross-district case identification.
Section 1328(f) Screening Method
Our screening methodology identifies cases where a debtor received a Chapter 13 discharge despite a prior bankruptcy filing within the statutory bar window.
Statutory Framework
| Prior Chapter | Bar Period | Measurement |
|---|---|---|
| Chapter 7, 11, or 12 | 4 years | Filing date to filing date |
| Chapter 13 | 2 years | Filing date to filing date |
Calculation
- Identify all Chapter 13 cases with a prior bankruptcy filing (FJC
PRBANKFLfield) - Match prior case to determine chapter and filing date
- Calculate gap: current filing date minus prior filing date
- Apply bar window: 4 years for Ch. 7/11/12 prior, 2 years for Ch. 13 prior
- Flag cases where gap < bar window AND discharge was entered
- De-stale: verify against docket records that discharge was actually entered (not vacated, not converted)
Key Precedent
In re Blendheim, 803 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2015): The filing-date-to-filing-date measurement applies under Section 1328(f). This is the majority position adopted by most courts that have addressed the question. Our screening tool applies this standard.
Attorney Performance Analysis
When comparing attorney outcomes, we use a tiered control group methodology to ensure valid baselines.
Control Group Construction
Control groups are selected from independent practitioners filing in the same courts during the same time periods. Attorneys with known affiliations to high-volume filing operations are excluded. The control group is tiered:
- Primary benchmark: 5 independent, high-volume practitioners with verified low dismissal rates
- Secondary benchmark: 10 additional independent practitioners for supplementary comparison
- Invalidated tiers: Attorneys with their own anomalies are excluded from control groups and analyzed separately
Outcome Metrics
We measure attorney and firm performance using multiple outcome indicators, each compared to district-level controls.
Dismissal Rate Analysis
| Metric | How Measured | Significance |
|---|---|---|
| Chapter 13 dismissal rate | Dismissed cases divided by total resolved cases | Primary outcome indicator. Compared to district average for the same period. |
| Dismissal velocity | Average days from filing to dismissal | Cases that fail faster than the district average suggest inadequate preparation at filing. |
| Discharge velocity | Average days from filing to discharge | Serves as a control. If discharge times are normal, accelerated dismissals are not explained by case complexity. |
| Dismissal velocity differential | Firm dismissal speed vs. district dismissal speed, compared alongside discharge speed | If dismissals are faster than district while discharges match, the pattern indicates cases filed without adequate preparation rather than cases affected by complex litigation or difficult clients. |
Cross-Chapter Differential
A critical diagnostic compares Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 outcomes for the same firm independently.
Chapter 7 cases require minimal ongoing attorney work after filing. Chapter 13 cases require plan drafting, creditor negotiation, payment administration, and plan modifications over 3-5 years.
When a firm produces normal Chapter 7 outcomes but elevated Chapter 13 dismissal rates, it demonstrates that the firm can handle simple cases competently but fails when sustained effort is required. This differential eliminates client quality, judicial assignment, and geographic factors as explanations, because those variables affect both chapters equally.
| Metric | What It Reveals |
|---|---|
| Ch.7 discharge rate vs. district | Establishes whether the firm handles simple cases competently |
| Ch.13 dismissal rate vs. district | Identifies where the performance gap exists |
| Ch.13/Ch.7 filing ratio vs. district | Detects potential chapter steering (filing Ch.13 when Ch.7 is appropriate) |
| Cross-chapter velocity differential | Normal Ch.7 velocity + accelerated Ch.13 dismissals = effort-dependent failure |
Chapter 7 Specific Screening
Chapter 7 cases have their own statutory eligibility requirements that can be screened using the same methodology:
| Statute | Bar Period | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| Section 727(a)(8) | 8 years | Prior Ch.7 discharge bars new Ch.7 discharge |
| Section 727(a)(9) | 6 years | Prior Ch.12/13 discharge bars new Ch.7 discharge (unless 100% or 70%+good faith payment) |
| Section 109(g) | 180 days | Prior dismissal for willful failure bars new filing |
Research Partnerships
The full analytical framework, including proprietary scoring models and detection algorithms, is available to academic researchers and institutional partners through formal collaboration agreements. If you are conducting empirical bankruptcy research and would like to explore a partnership, please contact us.
Quality Controls
- De-staling: All flagged cases are verified against current docket records before being counted as violations
- Deduplication: Multi-attorney cases are deduplicated by case ID to prevent inflation
- Recency bias check: Recent cohorts with high open-case percentages are analyzed separately
- Cross-validation: FJC data is cross-referenced against PACER and CourtListener where available
- Privacy: Individual debtor names are never published. All public output uses aggregate statistics or anonymized examples
Reproducibility
All screening and analysis tools are available on GitHub. The repository includes source code, data processing scripts, and documentation sufficient for independent replication.