The fundamentals of corporate action can seem about as interesting as flossing. Yet, the failure to attend to either is likely to result in unpleasant consequences as one lawyer recently discovered in Winterton v. Humitech of No. Cal., LLC, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 4164 (9th Cir. BAP 2011).
For attorneys, the phrase “Don’t be a jerk” starts any class on professionalism or ethics. Not taking another attorney’s phone calls and failing to return those calls certainly qualifies as “being a jerk”. It is frankly, quite rude. But while being rude can be aggravating to opposing counsel, is it sanctionable? A Puerto Rican lawyer and her firm found out to the tune of $14,270.60 that it is.
My spouse and I visited Chicago years ago, and confusedly started driving the wrong way down a one-way street. We were promptly pulled over by one of the Windy City’s finest. I gave him my best smile, and said, “Sorry, officer, we’re from out of town.” He grunted, “Don’t they have one-way streets where you come from?” But he didn’t give us a ticket. A recent disciplinary opinion out of Oklahoma, involving a tech-challenged bankruptcy lawyer, brings the story to mind.
E-filing woes bring bankruptcy court discipline
In re China Medical Technologies, Inc., 539 B.R. 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (No. 12-BR-13736)において、倒産手続 における会社の清算人は、同社の監査委員会に向けて外部弁護士が実施した倒産前の内部調査に関連 する資料にアクセスすることを求めた。破産裁判所は、外部弁護士に対し、秘匿特権で保護されない 資料の提出を命じたが、弁護士と依頼人の間の秘匿特権や職務活動の法理（ワークプロダクトの法 理）で保護される資料については提出を命じなかった。清算人は、提出が命じられなかったこれらの 資料につき、控訴した。当事者は、本件で先例となる秘匿特権についての判例はCFTC v.
In In re China Medical Technologies, Inc.,539 B.R. 643 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (No.
Baker Botts L.L.P. has filed its application for retention as debtors’ counsel in In re New Gulf Resources, LLC, et al. (Case No. 15-12556, Bankr. D. Del.), and the application incudes a novel “Fee Premium.” Essentially, Baker Botts’ aggregate fees incurred in the case will be increased by 10% (subject to court approval) but … Baker Botts will waive the entire Fee Premium “if, and only if, Baker Botts does not incur material fees and expenses defending against any objection with respect to an interim or final fee application.”
When you start planning to leave your firm for greener pastures, lots of ethics issues can crop up (bad pun). One of the most acute issues is if you get an offer to join a firm that is on the opposite side of a matter you are already handling. That was the situation in a recent bankruptcy case, In re US Bentonite, Inc., and it led the court to order the firm representing a Chapter 11 debtor-in-possession to disgorge several months’ worth of fees.
Client, with the assistance of its attorney, engages in illegal conduct. Client places money received from its illegal conduct in the attorney’s trust account. Attorney absconds with these illegal funds. When the client brings a non-dischargeability action in the attorney’s bankruptcy case, may the attorney defend the action under the unclean hands doctrine because the funds he stole were gained by the client through its own ille
The courts continue to pick away at the “unfinished business rule.” The latest blow came earlier this month when a U.S. district court dismissed a Chapter 7 trustee’s claims against eight law firms who provided services to former clients of Howrey LLP. We are getting close to the point where the unfinished business rule may in fact be finished.
“Stop in the name of love, before you break my heart”
That’s what bankruptcy lawyers are now proclaiming in the wake of Baker Botts v. Asarco, in which the Supreme Court held that the debtor’s law firm could not be paid its “fees on fees” in defending against an objection to their fees. Two disclaimers. First, our firm represented the winning party in Baker Botts, Second, I am a bankruptcy lawyer and I would like to be paid all of my fees, including fees on fees. But it ain’t right or, at least, it ain’t what Congress authorized in Bankruptcy Code § 330.