in particular the potential complexity of the unbundled service that the client may have to handle on her own, the higher the burden on the lawyer to demonstrate that the client understood what she agreed to. For example, where adversary proceedings are unbundled, the lawyer must present sufficient evidence for the court to infer that the client understood the nature of an adversary proceeding, the likelihood of one arising in the client’s case, the client’s pro se responsibilities if one were to be filed, and the potential risks to the client’s interests depending on the probable outcomes. For matters as complex as bankruptcy, a signed retainer agreement that merely states that certain proceedings are excluded from the flat fee is unlikely to suffice. Cf. In re Cuddy, 322 B.R. at 15 (<HOLDING>). There must be a demonstrated link between the
holding that the filing of an adversary proceeding in the same court sis debtors petition but different bankruptcy case violated the automatic stay holding pursuant to bankruptcy rule 7004b9 that because the creditor mailed the complaint and summons to the debtors attorney and to the address listed in the debtors bankruptcy petition service of process was sufficient even if the debtors were out of the country and did not actually receive notice of the complaint and summons holding that bankruptcy court is without jurisdiction to control disposition of chapter 13 debtors property that is not property of the bankruptcy estate unless the property is related to the bankruptcy proceedings of the code holding that a retainer agreements general payorwewill quit language was not specific enough to comply with a local rule that required bankruptcy attorneys to represent debtors in adversary proceedings unless the debtors expressly agreed otherwise holding that a debtors  522d1 exemption was invalid when the debtor exempted proceeds from the prepetition sale of the debtors marital home which were paid to a judgment creditor with an attachment on the debtors interest in the home