Some legal malpractice defendants are content to litigate claims asserted by debtors in the bankruptcy court. But many others, fearing that the debtor’s creditors may view them as a deep-pocketed resource to augment their own recoveries, would prefer to defend malpractice claims in what they view as a more neutral forum.
Being inexperienced can contribute to getting into disciplinary trouble, but it can also be a mitigating factor in a bar disciplinary case. That’s the message of a recent opinion of the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which imposed a six month suspension from state practice as reciprocal discipline on a lawyer who had already been suspended from federal bankruptcy court practice for five years.
Raising the risk?
The U.S. Bankruptcy Code gives debtors access to powerful rights and remedies that are not available under non-bankruptcy law. As a balance to these extraordinary powers however, a debtor may lose some or all control over its own affairs under certain circumstances. One of the rights that the debtor “puts into play” when it files bankruptcy is the attorney-client privilege (the Privilege).
On June 9, 2016, the New York State Court of Appeals, in Ambac Assur. Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, 2016 BL 184648 (N.Y. June 9, 2016), reversed a lower court decision, consistent with the overwhelming majority of federal court decisions, that the common interest doctrine under New York law is not limited to communications made in connection with pending or reasonably anticipated litigation.
Estate professionals are under continued scrutiny. Unlike other professionals, getting paid is not simply a matter of sending a bill. The bankruptcy court, appropriately so, closely oversees the amount and timing of payment of estate professional fees. And proper disclosure under the Bankruptcy Code and the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) is critical for all estate professionals.
Addressing a novel issue in In re: International Oil Trading Company, LLC, 548 B.R. 825 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2016), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida recently denied in part an involuntary debtor’s motion to compel production of communications between the judgment creditor who had filed the involuntary bankruptcy petition and the petitioner’s litigation funder. The Court found that the attorney-client privilege and work product protection were applicable to certain disclosures made to the litigation funder, a non-lawyer third-party.
Shlosberg v Avonwick Holdings Ltd & Ors [2016] EWHC 1001
Law firm Dechert LLP has been ordered to cease acting for the principal creditor of bankrupt Russian businessman, Mr Shlosberg, because it also acted for the trustees in bankruptcy, and accordingly had had access to documents subject to Mr Shlosberg's legal professional privilege.
Facts
This briefing is the first in a series of 3 briefings about the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 which we will be publishing over the next fortnight.
The pros and cons every claims professional needs to know – part 1
In June 2016, after a period of experimentation, the SFO promulgated an amended set of policies concerning the exercise of its power to conduct compelled interviews under Section 2 (s2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 (CJA). Part of this package is a document entitled “Presence of an interviewee’s legal adviser at a section 2 interview”. This expounds the SFO’s view as to their proper role whilst attending a s2 interview with their interviewee client.
The Jackson reforms to no-win no-fee agreements and the UK government's proposal to ban general damages for minor personal injuries have sent many UK firms into a tailspin.