Justia Legal Ethics Opinion Summaries

Prosser filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in 2006, which was converted to a Chapter 7 petition. Carroll was appointed as trustee. At a 2008 trial to adjudicate creditors’ objections to Prosser’s claim of exemptions, Stelzer, Prosser’s former “valet and personal assistant,” testified that Prosser asked him to destroy computer hard drives after Prosser filed for bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court denied the exemptions. Carroll and others initiated an adversary proceeding, seeking denial of discharge under 11 U.S.C. 727(a), Prosser deposed Stelzer in an effort to undermine his testimony; Prosser Counsel inquired into the payment of Stelzer’s legal fees by third parties and contacts Stelzer had with Carroll and Carroll’s counsel. Prosser Counsel later sought an evidentiary hearing into “a bribery scheme,” asserting that Stelzer gave unfavorable testimony during the Exemptions Trial in exchange for payment of his attorney fees in multiple litigations and that Carroll’s counsel had misrepresented Carroll’s contacts with Stelzer. Ultimately, Carroll obtained an award of legal fees and expenses against Prosser Counsel (28 U.S.C. 1927) contending that the Adversary Complaint, the Fee Objections, and the Conflicts Motion were patently meritless. The district court vacated, holding that the Adversary Complaint and Fee Objections could not have “multiplied” the adversary proceedings. The Third Circuit reversed, reinstating the sanctions. View "In re: Prosser" on Justia Law

Noel Bisges represented debtor in her Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. United States Trustee Nancy Gargula moved to reopen the case after it was closed because she learned that debtor possibly failed to disclose in her bankruptcy petition that she owns horses. On appeal, Bisges challenged the district court's decision upholding the bankruptcy court's denial of Bisges's motion to dismiss and the imposition of sanctions against him. The court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion where there is insufficient evidence of bad faith by Gargula. Further, the court saw no clear error in the bankruptcy judge's findings that Bisges advised debtor to omit from her bankruptcy petition a payment to her mother and Bisges violated 11 U.S.C. 707(b)(4)(C) by attaching to the bankruptcy petition schedules that significantly differed from the schedules that debtor had signed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Bisges v. Gargula" on Justia Law

Bradley Ian Berger and his law firm filed suit against debtor and his law partner in state court for outstanding fees owed to plaintiffs under a referral agreement between the parties. Berger had difficulty proving the amount of fees owed because debtor's partnership failed to file certain documents with the State. The failure led to discovery sanctions and the parties eventually settled. Berger subsequently filed an adversary proceeding against debtor in the bankruptcy court, arguing that 11 U.S.C. 727(a)(3) prevented debtor from obtaining bankruptcy relief. The court concluded that Berger failed to show that the facts of this case fell within the scope of section 727(a)(3) and the court rejected Berger's contention that the court's ruling permits debtor to evade his "legal and ethical duties" where debtor had already been sanctioned by the state court for failure to keep legally required documents. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's grant of debtor's motion for summary judgment.View "Berger & Assocs. Attorneys, P.C. v. Kran" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs commenced this action against their attorney and his law firm in state court for legal malpractice, alleging that the attorney was negligent in the performance of his duties as counsel to the unsecured creditors' committee. At issue was whether the bankruptcy court properly exercised jurisdiction over the malpractice action for the committee and correctly dismissed the claim. The court concluded that the district court properly concluded that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction over the removed legal malpractice action because it was a core proceeding. In this case, the employment of the attorney was approved by the bankruptcy court and was governed by 11 U.S.C. 1103; the attorney's duties pertained solely to the administration of the bankruptcy estate; and the claim asserted by plaintiffs was based solely on acts that occurred in the administration of the estate. The court also concluded that the district court correctly concluded that the bankruptcy court did not err in dismissing the complaint because the attorney did not owe an individual duty of care. Therefore, the court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case on the merits.View "Schultze, et al. v. Chandler, Sr., et al." on Justia Law

B&N, a law firm, represented debtor in his Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court converted the case to Chapter 7 and B&N's services were terminated. B&N then filed an application for fees in excess of $130,000. The bankruptcy court allowed approximately $20,000 and disallowed the remainder. The district court affirmed. Based on the court's review of the statutory framework and the court's decision in In re Pro-Snax Distribs., Inc., the court concluded that the bankruptcy court did not apply the wrong standard in making its ruling on the fee application and thus did not abuse its discretion. The bankruptcy court did not err in finding that B&N was entitled to only a small subset of the fees requested. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Barron & Newburger, P.C. v. Texas Skyline, Ltd., et al." on Justia Law

This appeal arose from contempt sanctions issued by the bankruptcy court against the Diazes for failing to transfer a Mexican coastal villa to Kismet. The court concluded that: (1) the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to substitute Axolotl as transferee; (2) the bankruptcy court did not violate due process in imposing certain sanctions; (3) the ACJ was sufficiently specific to support a finding of contempt; (4) even if "legal impossibility" excused noncompliance, the Diazes have not demonstrated that compliance with the ACJ was legally impossible; (5) the bankruptcy court's findings of contempt for the period up to November 25 were not clearly erroneous; (6) the Diazes' claim that the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to quantify fees and costs in its order of December 18, 2008 was moot where the order was vacated by the district court; and (7) the bankruptcy court properly abrogated attorney-client privilege where Mr. Diaz implicitly waived privilege with regard to communications on certain subjects. The court also concluded that the district court did not err in vacating the compulsory sanctions of $25,000 per day for the period from November 26, 2008 to December 4, 2008. Finally, the court granted requests for judicial notice. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "In re: Icenhower" on Justia Law

KDC had cash flow problems and, in 2004, hired Johnson. Johnson retained the law firm (GPM) of his acquaintance, Tenenbaum. GPM sent KDC an engagement letter that included conflict‐waiver language regarding Johnson and a company affiliated with Johnson. Johnson soon resigned and joined First Products. GPM resigned as KDC’s counsel. KDC filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Its assets were purchased at auction by First Products. No other bids were received; the bankruptcy court approved the sale. The bankruptcy was later converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation proceeding. The bankruptcy trustee hired Sullivan as special counsel. Sullivan had filed a shareholder derivative action before KDC filed for bankruptcy, alleging that directors and officers of KDC had conspired to defraud the company of its intellectual property by driving KDC out of business and purchasing its assets at bargain prices. In 2010, a Wisconsin state judge entered judgment, finding some defendants, including Johnson, had engaged in a civil conspiracy to defraud KDC and steal its assets. In 2012, KDC, through its bankruptcy trustee, brought claims against GPM, alleging involvement in the scheme to defraud KDC orchestrated by Johnson. On summary judgment, the district court determined that the remaining claims were barred by the six‐year Wisconsin statute of limitations because KDC was on notice of GPM’s alleged fraud by 2006, when Sullivan received KDC’s client file. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. View "KDC Foods, Inc. v. Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.C." on Justia Law

Thomas Hale filed for bankruptcy in 2005. During the course of that bankruptcy, he allegedly lied under oath and attempted to conceal from the bankruptcy trustee an agreement to sell property. After his relationship with the trustee became antagonistic, Hale sent her a package with unidentified material and a note that said, "Possible Haz-mat? Termites or Hanta virus [sic] from mice?" In 2013, Hale was convicted of making a materially false statement under oath in a bankruptcy case, concealing a contract from the bankruptcy trustee and creditors, and perpetrating a hoax regarding the transmission of a biological agent. Upon review of Hale's appeal, the Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part: "instead of charging Hale with 'making a false declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of perjury' with regard to his representations in [his bankruptcy petition,] Hale was charged with falsely answering a temporally ambiguous question that inquired about numerous filings and was asked nearly a year after the documents were submitted. We do not think it proper to condone the prosecution’s creation of this ambiguity. We thus conclude that the error 'seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'" The Court reversed the conviction with regard to the false statement, but affirmed in all other respects. View "United States v. Hale" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from the bankruptcy court's order imposing sanctions and judgment, and an order denying a motion to vacate or alter or amend judgment. The bankruptcy appellate panel affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision that defendant violated Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, as well as its imposition of sanctions in connection therewith, including suspension of defendant from practice for six months under Local Rule 2090-2; reversed the bankruptcy court's imposition of sanctions against defendant under 11 U.S.C. 105 and its inherent authority because defendant did not receive separate prior notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding such sanctions; and remanded to the bankruptcy court the decision regarding sanctions for alleged misrepresentations by defendant at the Order to Appear and Show Cause hearing. View "Young v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Plaintiff claimed that the judge who presided over the administration of the Yellowstone Mountain Club ski resort's bankruptcy was biased against him and should have recused himself. The bankruptcy judge denied the recusal motion and the district court affirmed. The court rejected plaintiff's claim that the judge made ex part communications; the rulings made by the judge purportedly denied plaintiff due process; and the judge made supposed biased statements during various proceedings. Plaintiff's claims were a transparent attempt to wriggle out of an unfavorable decision by smearing the reputation of the judge who made it. Accordingly, the court affirmed the denial of the recusal motion. View "Blixseth v. Yellowstone Mountain Club, LLC, et al." on Justia Law