.jpg)
Den of Thieves
LOL.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
LOL.-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Can you please post the case number? I need to do two of them.
Stella Havkin
Description: cid:part1.09090707.02070109@yahoo.com
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist - The State Bar of California Board of
Legal Specialization
Certified Consumer Bankruptcy Law Specialist - The American Board of
Certification
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I've done two motions to disgorge fees from prior debtor's counsel. The motions are easy to get granted, but it is not so easy to actually collect the fees ordered disgorged. I did, however, have one client tell me that his Order Disgorging Fees was used by the State Bar in proceedings to suspend the lawyer (who had done the same to many others). My client is looking at the State Bar Client Recovery Fund as a source for recovery which is probably more likely than any recovery from the attorney.
Link Schrader, Attorney
Law Office of Link W. Schrader
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Don't want to know the lawyers name.
I was just posing a theory for the conduct aside from theft. I do individual 11's for these people. I agree the lawyer should have negotiated with the trustee.
D
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2012, at 6:09 AM, Arsen Pogosov wrote:
> Dennis,
>
>
>
> The name of the lawyer is available if you want it. Trustee raised about 15 different objections at the 341(a), none of which were addressed to my knowledge. Lawyer nonetheless filed the 2 motions a month after the 341a.
>
>
>
> If what you say about the debt limits and common practice in the Central District is indeed true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), then at the least the Attorney should have reached an understanding with the Trustee that she would not object on the grounds of the debt limits being exceeded.
>
>
>
> Attorney did not reach any such agreement with the Trustee. He just quickly filed the motions to earn his fees. Attorney is not a newly-minted one, hungry for cases. Hes rich, lives in a mansion, and is motivated primarily by greed.
>
>
>
> Arsen
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Don't want to know the lawyers name. I was just posing a theory for the conduct aside from theft. I do individual 11's for these people. I agree the lawyer should have negotiated with the trustee. DSent from my iPhoneOn Jul 30, 2012, at 6:09 AM, Arsen Pogosov <arsen.pogosov@hotmail.com> wrote:
Dennis, The name of the lawyer is available if you want it. Trustee raised about 15 different objections at the 341(a), none of which were addressed to my knowledge. Lawyer nonetheless filed the 2 motions a month after the 341a. If what you say about the debt limits and common practice in the Central District is indeed true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), then at the least the Attorney should have reached an understanding with the Trustee that she would not object on the grounds of the debt limits being exceeded. Attorney did not reach any such agreement with the Trustee. He just quickly filed the motions to earn his fees. Attorney is not a newly-minted one, hungry for cases. Hes rich, lives in a mansion, and is motivated primarily by greed. Arsen
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Dennis,
The name of the lawyer is available if you want it. Trustee raised about 15
different objections at the 341(a), none of which were addressed to my
knowledge. Lawyer nonetheless filed the 2 motions a month after the 341a.
If what you say about the debt limits and common practice in the Central
District is indeed true (and I have no reason to doubt that it is), then at
the least the Attorney should have reached an understanding with the Trustee
that she would not object on the grounds of the debt limits being exceeded.
Attorney did not reach any such agreement with the Trustee. He just quickly
filed the motions to earn his fees. Attorney is not a newly-minted one,
hungry for cases. He's rich, lives in a mansion, and is motivated primarily
by greed.
Arsen
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
And is there any trustee who won't object?
On Jul 30, 2012 10:09 AM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
> Which other judges allow this?
> On Jul 29, 2012 11:14 PM, "Dennis McGoldrick" wrote:
>
>> **
>>
>>
>> Arsen:
>>
>> Don't know to which lawyer you refer, but keep in mind that Judge Tighe,
>> and some other judges invite chapter 13 filings for debtor's over the
>> limits, and confirm plans for people over the limits. Why? They have
>> previously ruled that 109 is not jurisdictional, and if no one objects, it
>> can be used to save the higher chapter 11 fees.
>>
>> However, as you state, if the 13 trustee objects, the case has to be
>> dismissed.
>>
>> d
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* Arsen Pogosov
>> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:06 PM
>> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Den of Thieves
>>
>>
>> Dear Listmates:
>>
>> I would like to solicit your opinion on the following situation:
>>
>> Attorney (not from LA county) charges the full no-look fee for a Chapter
>> 13 and files it. At the 341(a) hearing, Trustee informs Attorney that his
>> client is over the debt limits for a Chapter 13 (i.e. over $1.06m secured
>> debt). No response from Attorney, attorney does not address this issue.
>>
>> One month after the 341(a) hearing, Attorney files 2 separate lien-strip
>> motions, charging $1500 plus appraisal fees for each motion. Motions are
>> granted. A week after motions are granted, Trustee files an objection on
>> the grounds that the debt limits have been exceeded.
>>
>> Again, no response by Attorney to Trustees objection. Court dismisses
>> the case a month later based on Trustees objection.
>>
>> *Question#1*: did I just witness a rape of a client, where Attorney
>> took $3000 from client for useless services which Attorney knew would not
>> give any benefit to the client.
>>
>> *Question#2*: if Attorneys services were in vain, useless, and
>> Attorney knew about this the whole time, should the Attorney return the
>> $3000 to the client?
>>
>> Your opinion is very much appreciated. Thank you.
>>
>> Arsen Pogosov
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
And is there any trustee who won't object?
On Jul 30, 2012 10:09 AM, "Kirk Brennan" <kirkinhermosa@gmail.com> wrote:
Which other judges allow this?
On Jul 29, 2012 11:14 PM, "Dennis McGoldrick" <easky1@yahoo.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Which other judges allow this?
On Jul 29, 2012 11:14 PM, "Dennis McGoldrick" wrote:
> **
>
>
> Arsen:
>
> Don't know to which lawyer you refer, but keep in mind that Judge Tighe,
> and some other judges invite chapter 13 filings for debtor's over the
> limits, and confirm plans for people over the limits. Why? They have
> previously ruled that 109 is not jurisdictional, and if no one objects, it
> can be used to save the higher chapter 11 fees.
>
> However, as you state, if the 13 trustee objects, the case has to be
> dismissed.
>
> d
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Arsen Pogosov
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:06 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Den of Thieves
>
>
> Dear Listmates:
>
> I would like to solicit your opinion on the following situation:
>
> Attorney (not from LA county) charges the full no-look fee for a Chapter
> 13 and files it. At the 341(a) hearing, Trustee informs Attorney that his
> client is over the debt limits for a Chapter 13 (i.e. over $1.06m secured
> debt). No response from Attorney, attorney does not address this issue.
>
> One month after the 341(a) hearing, Attorney files 2 separate lien-strip
> motions, charging $1500 plus appraisal fees for each motion. Motions are
> granted. A week after motions are granted, Trustee files an objection on
> the grounds that the debt limits have been exceeded.
>
> Again, no response by Attorney to Trustees objection. Court dismisses
> the case a month later based on Trustees objection.
>
> *Question#1*: did I just witness a rape of a client, where Attorney
> took $3000 from client for useless services which Attorney knew would not
> give any benefit to the client.
>
> *Question#2*: if Attorneys services were in vain, useless, and Attorney
> knew about this the whole time, should the Attorney return the $3000 to the
> client?
>
> Your opinion is very much appreciated. Thank you.
>
> Arsen Pogosov
>
>
>
>
Which other judges allow this?
On Jul 29, 2012 11:14 PM, "Dennis McGoldrick" <easky1@yahoo.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Arsen:
Don't know to which lawyer you refer, but keep in mind that Judge Tighe, and some other judges invite chapter 13 filings for debtor's over the limits, and confirm plans for people over the limits. Why? They have previously ruled that 109 is not jurisdictional, and if no one objects, it can be used to save the higher chapter 11 fees.
However, as you state, if the 13 trustee objects, the case has to be dismissed.
d
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 12:06 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Den of Thieves
Dear Listmates:
I would like to solicit your opinion on the following situation:
Attorney (not from LA county) charges the full no-look fee for a Chapter 13 and files it. At the 341(a) hearing, Trustee informs Attorney that his client is over the debt limits for a Chapter 13 (i.e. over $1.06m secured debt). No response from Attorney, attorney does not address this issue.
One month after the 341(a) hearing, Attorney files 2 separate lien-strip motions, charging $1500 plus appraisal fees for each motion. Motions are granted. A week after motions are granted, Trustee files an objection on the grounds that the debt limits have been exceeded.
Again, no response by Attorney to Trustees objection. Court dismisses the case a month later based on Trustees objection.
Question#1: did I just witness a rape of a client, where Attorney took $3000 from client for useless services which Attorney knew would not give any benefit to the client.
Question#2: if Attorneys services were in vain, useless, and Attorney knew about this the whole time, should the Attorney return the $3000 to the client?
Your opinion is very much appreciated. Thank you.
Arsen Pogosov
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Dear Listmates:
I would like to solicit your opinion on the following situation:
Attorney (not from LA county) charges the full no-look fee for a Chapter 13
and files it. At the 341(a) hearing, Trustee informs Attorney that his
client is over the debt limits for a Chapter 13 (i.e. over $1.06m secured
debt). No response from Attorney, attorney does not address this issue.
One month after the 341(a) hearing, Attorney files 2 separate lien-strip
motions, charging $1500 plus appraisal fees for each motion. Motions are
granted. A week after motions are granted, Trustee files an objection on
the grounds that the debt limits have been exceeded.
Again, no response by Attorney to Trustee's objection. Court dismisses the
case a month later based on Trustee's objection.
Question#1: did I just witness a "rape" of a client, where Attorney took
$3000 from client for useless services which Attorney knew would not give
any benefit to the client.
Question#2: if Attorney's services were in vain, useless, and Attorney knew
about this the whole time, should the Attorney return the $3000 to the
client?
Your opinion is very much appreciated. Thank you.
Arsen Pogosov
The post was migrated from Yahoo.