.jpg)
Limited Scope of Representation
Mike:
I don't want a rookie lawyer to walk away and leave someone pro se, I want the lawyer to refer the debtor to someone with experience.
If the inexperienced lawyer is forced to defend, the debtor likely, will not have a good result.
If the debtor realizes that the lawyer is stuck doing the defense for free, the debtor won't want to hire someone who can present a good defense.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Dec 20, 2014, at 9:11 AM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> At the end of the day, the Judges are not going to force us to take on APs.
>
> Regarding "Do you want the rookie lawyer, who cannot tell what the result will be, to be required to lose the adversary, due to their inexperience?" Assume a rookie lawyer files bankruptcy for client in a situation where it's clear that client would get hit with an AP.
>
> You would like the rookie to be able to walk away leaving the former client pro se. I am not convinced that's the best solution. I don't know what is. This was a throwaway question though. The focus of the committee/judges is on 341 meetings and amending schedules following those meetings.
>
> I anticipate no unbundling of a bk through amendments to a case. Everything else will continue to be unbundleable.
>
> Sincerely,
> Michael Avanesian
>
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:57 PM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Mike:
>>
>> This analysis is wrong. You can make this analysis, and I can make this analysis, but a rookie lawyer cannot. Do you want the rookie lawyer, who cannot tell what the result will be, to be required to lose the adversary, due to their inexperience?
>>
>> The whole idea that everyone should be omniscient is crazy.
>>
>> d
>>
>> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 19, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I am on the committee too. I am possibly related to Draco.
>>>
>>> In my opinion (apology for the obvious), there must be informed consent for an attorney to avoid having to represent a client in an adversary.
>>>
>>> When a client walks into your office, you should be able to reliably predict what will happen during the course of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If you can't, you're not spending enough time analyzing the client's situation.
>>>
>>> Your clients will fall into three categories:
>>>
>>> 1. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, will not be necessary.
>>> 2. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, WILL be necessary.
>>> 3. Toss up but there is a likelihood.
>>>
>>> Why shouldn't your clients, particularly those in categories 2 and 3, be given informed consent that the bankruptcy is going to (or may) throw their life in a tailspin? An analysis of those risks should be mandatory.
>>>
>>> It's not okay to throw them in a chapter and walk away.
>>>
>>> I sympathize with Mark's point in particular. The schedules he prepares are meticulous and those of his clients who don't need representation are not forced to pay a premium $50 to $100 for an attorney to hold their hands at the 341. Is the Central District willing to tap those people for an extra $50 to $100 for the benefit of all those who are scared to death of the Trustee, often their first and only experience with the judiciary, who suddenly have no attorney and need to amend their schedules. They have no idea what that even means. It's an easy yes for me.
>>>
>>> -Mike
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>>
>>>> DeLuca v. Seare (In re Seare) , --- BR --- (9th Cir. BAP Aug, 2014)
>>>>
>>>> Issue: Did the court properly sanction the chapter 7 debtor's attorney for not representing the debtor in a non-dischargeability action? >>>>
>>>> Holding: Yes, for many reasons but most importantly for not properly defining the goals of the representation at the outset and for not getting informed consent to the "unbundling."
>>>>
>>>> Standard: abuse of discretion
>>>>
>>>> Judge Bruce Markell, Nevada
>>>>
>>>> Kirscher, Taylor, Jury
>>>>
>>>> Opinion by Kirscher, concurrence by Jury
>>>>
>>>> Here the chapter 7 debtor had sued his former employer prepetition in District Court for sexual harassment but later he admitted that he had "embellished" the claims. Based on that, the District Court dismissed the case and entered judgment against him for attorneys fees of $67,000. The debtor then filed chapter 7 using attorney DeLuca. The employer filed a 523 complaint against the debtor and DeLuca told the debtor to find someone else to defend him. The debtor filed an answer in pro per and attended the status conference. At that time, Judge Markell issued an OSC against DeLuca re why he should not be sanctioned for "Failing to Represent Debtor in the . . . Adversary Proceeding. DeLuca responded saying that his 19 page retainer agreement expressly excluded adversary proceedings from the representation. In fact the debtor initialed every page of the retainer agreement although apparently no one from the DeLuca office went through it with him. Also DeLuca tried to dodge responsibility by saying that he had no reason to believe that a complaint may be on the way. The court clearly did not believe that and said that it was so obvious it was coming there might not have been a reason for filing the case in the first place. After an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered DeLuca to return the $2,000 fee and "that for the next two years DeLuca provide a copy of the Sanctions Opinion to future adversary clients whose case he declines." DeLuca appealed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The BAP affirmed. In a very long opinion, the BAP looked first (as did Markell) at the Nevada Rules of Professional Responsibility. "Specifically, the court found that as a result of a lack of communication at the initial consultation DeLuca failed in his primary duty ascertaining Debtors objectives and defining the goals of the representation." The big problem according to Markell and the BAP is that DeLuca spent very little time with the client at the outset and left the rest to his staff. The "unbundling" "decision" was not made with any thought - it was part of the preprinted retainer agreement. The retainer agreement said that representation in adversary proceedings would be extra. "The bankruptcy court held that DeLuca had further violated NRPC 1.2(c) because he did not obtain Debtors informed consent in limiting the scope of his representation." When DeLuca later told the debtor he would not represent him in the adversary, he "changed" the basis of the agreement.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Markell also found and the BAP agreed that DeLuca violated section 707(b)(4)(C) by failing to "perform a reasonable investigation." He also violated 526(a) and 528(a) by "failing to accurately explain that he would not represent Debtors in an adversary proceeding and the risks Debtors could face in bankruptcy." He violated 528(a) because he did not sign the retainer agreement and
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "because the Retainer Agreement did not 'clearly and conspicuously' explain the scope of services and fees. Id. Specifically, DeLuca excluded services using technical terms like 'nondischargeability allegations' and 'adversary proceedings,' which a layperson would not likely understand. Further, the standard form contract did not relate these services to a client additional services were likely to be needed, Debtors had no way of knowing which exclusions were likely to apply and what the chances were of facing increased legal fees."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Judge Jury's concurrence says the unbundling is a "minefield" but makes an effort to explain when it is appropriate. "If done correctly, unbundling may be key to competent consumer bankruptcy attorneys providing much needed representation to debtors at an affordable price. Without the ability to unbundle adversaries, the flat fee which a consumer attorney would need to charge for basic bankruptcy representation might become prohibitive and exacerbate the already existing problem of pro se filings." It was "the initial intake interview that tripped DeLuca up because he did not properly define the goal of the representation of [the debtor]." "All the other ethical and statutory violations found by the bankruptcy judge flowed from this initial deficiency in the limited scope representation." She ended with her "suggestions for such attorneys to avoid violating ethical rules and the Bankruptcy Code when they limit the scope of representation of consumer debtors."
>
>
On Dec 19, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
I am on the committee too. I am possibly related to Draco. In my opinion (apology for the obvious), there must be informed consent for an attorney to avoid having to represent a client in an adversary. When a client walks into your office, you should be able to reliably predict what will happen during the course of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If you can't, you're not spending enough time analyzing the client's situation. Your clients will fall into three categories: 1. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, will not be necessary.2. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, WILL be necessary.3. Toss up but there is a likelihood. Why shouldn't your clients, particularly those in categories 2 and 3, be given informed consent that the bankruptcy is going to (or may) throw their life in a tailspin? An analysis of those risks should be mandatory. It's not okay to throw them in a chapter and walk away. I sympathize with Mark's point in particular. The schedules he prepares are meticulous and those of his clients who don't need representation are not forced to pay a premium $50 to $100 for an attorney to hold their hands at the 341. Is the Central District willing to tap those people for an extra $50 to $100 for the benefit of all those who are scared to death of the Trustee, often their first and only experience with the judiciary, who suddenly have no attorney and need to amend their schedules. They have no idea what that even means. It's an easy yes for me. -MikeOn Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
DeLuca v. Seare (In re Seare) , --- BR ---
(9th Cir. BAP Aug, 2014)
Issue: Did the court properly sanction the chapter 7 debtor's
attorney for not representing the debtor in a non-dischargeability action?
Holding: Yes, for many reasons
but most importantly for not properly defining the goals of the representation
at the outset and for not getting informed consent to the
"unbundling."
Standard:
abuse of discretion
Judge Bruce Markell, Nevada
Kirscher, Taylor, Jury
Opinion by Kirscher, concurrence by Jury
Here the chapter 7 debtor had sued his former employer prepetition in District
Court for sexual harassment but later he admitted that he had "embellished"
the claims. Based on that, the District
Court dismissed the case and entered judgment against him for attorneys fees of
$67,000. The debtor then filed chapter 7
using attorney DeLuca. The employer
filed a 523 complaint against the debtor and DeLuca told the debtor to find
someone else to defend him. The debtor
filed an answer in pro per and attended the status conference. At that time, Judge Markell issued an OSC
against DeLuca re why he should not be sanctioned for "Failing to
Represent Debtor in the . . . Adversary Proceeding. DeLuca responded saying that his 19 page
retainer agreement expressly excluded adversary proceedings from the
representation. In fact the debtor
initialed every page of the retainer agreement although apparently no one from
the DeLuca office went through it with him.
Also DeLuca tried to dodge responsibility by saying that he had no
reason to believe that a complaint may be on the way. The court clearly did not believe that and
said that it was so obvious it was coming there might not have been a reason
for filing the case in the first place.
After an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered DeLuca to return the
$2,000 fee and "that for the next two years DeLuca provide a copy of the
Sanctions Opinion to future adversary clients whose case he declines." DeLuca appealed.
The BAP affirmed. In a very long opinion, the BAP looked first
(as did Markell) at the Nevada Rules of Professional Responsibility. "Specifically, the court found that as
a result of a lack of communication at the initial consultation DeLuca failed
in his primary duty ascertaining Debtors objectives and defining the goals
of the representation." The big
problem according to Markell and the BAP is that DeLuca spent very little time
with the client at the outset and left the rest to his staff. The "unbundling" "decision"
was not made with any thought - it was part of the preprinted retainer
agreement. The retainer agreement said
that representation in adversary proceedings would be extra. "The bankruptcy court held that DeLuca
had further violated NRPC 1.2(c) because he did not obtain Debtors informed
consent in limiting the scope of his representation." When DeLuca later told the debtor he would
not represent him in the adversary, he "changed" the basis of the
agreement.
Markell also found and the BAP agreed that
DeLuca violated section 707(b)(4)(C) by failing to "perform a reasonable
investigation." He also violated
526(a) and 528(a) by "failing to accurately explain that he would not
represent Debtors in an adversary proceeding and the risks Debtors could face
in bankruptcy." He violated 528(a)
because he did not sign the retainer agreement and
"because
the Retainer Agreement did not 'clearly and conspicuously' explain the scope of
services and fees. Id. Specifically,
DeLuca excluded services using technical terms like 'nondischargeability
allegations' and 'adversary proceedings,' which a layperson would not likely
understand. Further, the standard form
contract did not relate these services to a clients particular case, and,
without clarification from DeLuca about which additional services were likely
to be needed, Debtors had no way of knowing which exclusions were likely to
apply and what the chances were of facing increased legal fees."
Judge Jury's concurrence says the unbundling is
a "minefield" but makes an effort to explain when it is
appropriate. "If done correctly,
unbundling may be key to competent consumer bankruptcy attorneys providing much
needed representation to debtors at an affordable price. Without the ability to
unbundle adversaries, the flat fee which a consumer attorney would need to
charge for basic bankruptcy representation might become prohibitive and
exacerbate the already existing problem of pro se filings." It was "the initial intake interview
that tripped DeLuca up because he did not properly define the goal of the
representation of [the debtor]."
"All the other ethical and statutory violations found by the
bankruptcy judge flowed from this initial deficiency in the limited scope
representation." She ended with her
"suggestions for such attorneys to avoid violating ethical rules and the
Bankruptcy Code when they limit the scope of representation of consumer debtors."
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
At the end of the day, the Judges are not going to force us to take on APs.
Regarding "Do you want the rookie lawyer, who cannot tell what the result
will be, to be required to lose the adversary, due to their
inexperience?" Assume
a rookie lawyer files bankruptcy for client in a situation where it's clear
that client would get hit with an AP.
You would like the rookie to be able to walk away leaving the former client
pro se. I am not convinced that's the best solution. I don't know what is.
This was a throwaway question though. The focus of the committee/judges is
on 341 meetings and amending schedules following those meetings.
I anticipate no unbundling of a bk through amendments to a case. Everything
else will continue to be unbundleable.
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:57 PM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> Mike:
>
> This analysis is wrong. You can make this analysis, and I can make this
> analysis, but a rookie lawyer cannot. Do you want the rookie lawyer, who
> cannot tell what the result will be, to be required to lose the adversary,
> due to their inexperience?
>
> The whole idea that everyone should be omniscient is crazy.
>
> d
>
> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
> 310-328-1001-voice
> [image: cid:part1.03050307.05030101@bklaw.com]
>
> On Dec 19, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> I am on the committee too. I am possibly related to Draco.
>
> In my opinion (apology for the obvious), there must be informed consent
> for an attorney to avoid having to represent a client in an adversary.
>
> When a client walks into your office, you should be able to reliably
> predict what will happen during the course of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If
> you can't, you're not spending enough time analyzing the client's
> situation.
>
> Your clients will fall into three categories:
>
> 1. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, will not
> be necessary.
> 2. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, WILL be
> necessary.
> 3. Toss up but there is a likelihood.
>
> Why shouldn't your clients, particularly those in categories 2 and 3, be
> given informed consent that the bankruptcy is going to (or may) throw their
> life in a tailspin? An analysis of those risks should be mandatory.
>
> It's not okay to throw them in a chapter and walk away.
>
> I sympathize with Mark's point in particular. The schedules he prepares
> are meticulous and those of his clients who don't need representation are
> not forced to pay a premium $50 to $100 for an attorney to hold their hands
> at the 341. Is the Central District willing to tap those people for an
> extra $50 to $100 for the benefit of all those who are scared to death of
> the Trustee, often their first and only experience with the judiciary, who
> suddenly have no attorney and need to amend their schedules. They have no
> idea what that even means. It's an easy yes for me.
>
> -Mike
>
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *DeLuca v. Seare (In re Seare) , --- BR --- (9th Cir. BAP Aug, 2014) *
>> Issue: Did the court properly sanction the chapter 7 debtor's attorney
>> for not representing the debtor in a non-dischargeability action?
>>
>> Holding: Yes, for many reasons but most importantly for not properly
>> defining the goals of the representation at the outset and for not getting
>> informed consent to the "unbundling."
>>
>> Standard: abuse of discretion
>>
>> Judge Bruce Markell, Nevada
>>
>> Kirscher, Taylor, Jury
>>
>> Opinion by Kirscher, concurrence by Jury
>>
>> Here the chapter 7 debtor had sued his former employer prepetition in
>> District Court for sexual harassment but later he admitted that he had
>> "embellished" the claims. Based on that, the District Court dismissed the
>> case and entered judgment against him for attorneys fees of $67,000. The
>> debtor then filed chapter 7 using attorney DeLuca. The employer filed a
>> 523 complaint against the debtor and DeLuca told the debtor to find someone
>> else to defend him. The debtor filed an answer in pro per and attended the
>> status conference. At that time, Judge Markell issued an OSC against
>> DeLuca re why he should not be sanctioned for "Failing to Represent Debtor
>> in the . . . Adversary Proceeding. DeLuca responded saying that his 19
>> page retainer agreement expressly excluded adversary proceedings from the
>> representation. In fact the debtor initialed every page of the retainer
>> agreement although apparently no one from the DeLuca office went through it
>> with him. Also DeLuca tried to dodge responsibility by saying that he had
>> no reason to believe that a complaint may be on the way. The court clearly
>> did not believe that and said that it was so obvious it was coming there
>> might not have been a reason for filing the case in the first place. After
>> an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered DeLuca to return the $2,000 fee
>> and "that for the next two years DeLuca provide a copy of the Sanctions
>> Opinion to future adversary clients whose case he declines." DeLuca
>> appealed.
>>
>>
>> The BAP affirmed. In a very long opinion, the BAP looked first (as did
>> Markell) at the Nevada Rules of Professional Responsibility.
>> "Specifically, the court found that as a result of a lack of communication
>> at the initial consultation DeLuca failed in his primary duty
>> ascertaining Debtors objectives and defining the goals of the
>> representation." The big problem according to Markell and the BAP is that
>> DeLuca spent very little time with the client at the outset and left the
>> rest to his staff. The "unbundling" "decision" was not made with any
>> thought - it was part of the preprinted retainer agreement. The retainer
>> agreement said that representation in adversary proceedings would be
>> extra. "The bankruptcy court held that DeLuca had further violated NRPC
>> 1.2(c) because he did not obtain Debtors informed consent in limiting the
>> scope of his representation." When DeLuca later told the debtor he would
>> not represent him in the adversary, he "changed" the basis of the
>> agreement.
>>
>>
>> Markell also found and the BAP agreed that DeLuca violated section
>> 707(b)(4)(C) by failing to "perform a reasonable investigation." He also
>> violated 526(a) and 528(a) by "failing to accurately explain that he would
>> not represent Debtors in an adversary proceeding and the risks Debtors
>> could face in bankruptcy." He violated 528(a) because he did not sign the
>> retainer agreement and
>>
>>
>> "because the Retainer Agreement did not 'clearly and conspicuously'
>> explain the scope of services and fees. Id. Specifically, DeLuca excluded
>> services using technical terms like 'nondischargeability allegations' and
>> 'adversary proceedings,' which a layperson would not likely understand.
>> Further, the standard form contract did not relate these services to a
>> clients particular case, and, without clarification from DeLuca about
>> which additional services were likely to be needed, Debtors had no way of
>> knowing which exclusions were likely to apply and what the chances were of
>> facing increased legal fees."
>>
>>
>> Judge Jury's concurrence says the unbundling is a "minefield" but makes
>> an effort to explain when it is appropriate. "If done correctly,
>> unbundling may be key to competent consumer bankruptcy attorneys providing
>> much needed representation to debtors at an affordable price. Without the
>> ability to unbundle adversaries, the flat fee which a consumer attorney
>> would need to charge for basic bankruptcy representation might become
>> prohibitive and exacerbate the already existing problem of pro se
>> filings." It was "the initial intake interview that tripped DeLuca up
>> because he did not properly define the goal of the representation of [the
>> debtor]." "All the other ethical and statutory violations found by the
>> bankruptcy judge flowed from this initial deficiency in the limited scope
>> representation." She ended with her "suggestions for such attorneys to
>> avoid violating ethical rules and the Bankruptcy Code when they limit the
>> scope of representation of consumer debtors."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
At the end of the day, the Judges are not going to force us to take on APs.Regarding "Do you want the rookie lawyer, who cannot tell what the result will be, to be required to lose the adversary, due to their inexperience?"Assume a rookie lawyer files bankruptcy for client in a situation where it's clear that client would get hit with an AP.You would like the rookie to be able to walk away leaving the former client pro se.I am not convinced that's the best solution. I don't know what is. This was a throwaway question though. The focus of the committee/judges is on 341 meetings and amending schedules following those meetings.I anticipate no unbundling of a bk through amendments to a case. Everything else will continue to be unbundleable.Sincerely, Michael AvanesianOn Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 8:57 PM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Mike:This analysis is wrong. You can make this analysis, and I can make this analysis, but a rookie lawyer cannot. Do you want the rookie lawyer, who cannot tell what the result will be, to be required to lose the adversary, due to their inexperience?The whole idea that everyone should be omniscient is crazy.dDennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Mike:
This analysis is wrong. You can make this analysis, and I can make this analysis, but a rookie lawyer cannot. Do you want the rookie lawyer, who cannot tell what the result will be, to be required to lose the adversary, due to their inexperience?
The whole idea that everyone should be omniscient is crazy.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Dec 19, 2014, at 4:57 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I am on the committee too. I am possibly related to Draco.
>
> In my opinion (apology for the obvious), there must be informed consent for an attorney to avoid having to represent a client in an adversary.
>
> When a client walks into your office, you should be able to reliably predict what will happen during the course of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If you can't, you're not spending enough time analyzing the client's situation.
>
> Your clients will fall into three categories:
>
> 1. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, will not be necessary.
> 2. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, WILL be necessary.
> 3. Toss up but there is a likelihood.
>
> Why shouldn't your clients, particularly those in categories 2 and 3, be given informed consent that the bankruptcy is going to (or may) throw their life in a tailspin? An analysis of those risks should be mandatory.
>
> It's not okay to throw them in a chapter and walk away.
>
> I sympathize with Mark's point in particular. The schedules he prepares are meticulous and those of his clients who don't need representation are not forced to pay a premium $50 to $100 for an attorney to hold their hands at the 341. Is the Central District willing to tap those people for an extra $50 to $100 for the benefit of all those who are scared to death of the Trustee, often their first and only experience with the judiciary, who suddenly have no attorney and need to amend their schedules. They have no idea what that even means. It's an easy yes for me.
>
> -Mike
>
>> On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> DeLuca v. Seare (In re Seare) , --- BR --- (9th Cir. BAP Aug, 2014)
>>
>> Issue: Did the court properly sanction the chapter 7 debtor's attorney for not representing the debtor in a non-dischargeability action? >>
>> Holding: Yes, for many reasons but most importantly for not properly defining the goals of the representation at the outset and for not getting informed consent to the "unbundling."
>>
>> Standard: abuse of discretion
>>
>> Judge Bruce Markell, Nevada
>>
>> Kirscher, Taylor, Jury
>>
>> Opinion by Kirscher, concurrence by Jury
>>
>> Here the chapter 7 debtor had sued his former employer prepetition in District Court for sexual harassment but later he admitted that he had "embellished" the claims. Based on that, the District Court dismissed the case and entered judgment against him for attorneys fees of $67,000. The debtor then filed chapter 7 using attorney DeLuca. The employer filed a 523 complaint against the debtor and DeLuca told the debtor to find someone else to defend him. The debtor filed an answer in pro per and attended the status conference. At that time, Judge Markell issued an OSC against DeLuca re why he should not be sanctioned for "Failing to Represent Debtor in the . . . Adversary Proceeding. DeLuca responded saying that his 19 page retainer agreement expressly excluded adversary proceedings from the representation. In fact the debtor initialed every page of the retainer agreement although apparently no one from the DeLuca office went through it with him. Also DeLuca tried to dodge responsibility by saying that he had no reason to believe that a complaint may be on the way. The court clearly did not believe that and said that it was so obvious it was coming there might not have been a reason for filing the case in the first place. After an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered DeLuca to return the $2,000 fee and "that for the next two years DeLuca provide a copy of the Sanctions Opinion to future adversary clients whose case he declines." DeLuca appealed.
>>
>>
>>
>> The BAP affirmed. In a very long opinion, the BAP looked first (as did Markell) at the Nevada Rules of Professional Responsibility. "Specifically, the court found that as a result of a lack of communication at the initial consultation DeLuca failed in his primary duty ascertaining Debtors objectives and defining the goals of the representation." The big problem according to Markell and the BAP is that DeLuca spent very little time with the client at the outset and left the rest to his staff. The "unbundling" "decision" was not made with any thought - it was part of the preprinted retainer agreement. The retainer agreement said that representation in adversary proceedings would be extra. "The bankruptcy court held that DeLuca had further violated NRPC 1.2(c) because he did not obtain Debtors informed consent in limiting the scope of his representation." When DeLuca later told the debtor he would not represent him in the adversary, he "changed" the basis of the agreement.
>>
>>
>>
>> Markell also found and the BAP agreed that DeLuca violated section 707(b)(4)(C) by failing to "perform a reasonable investigation." He also violated 526(a) and 528(a) by "failing to accurately explain that he would not represent Debtors in an adversary proceeding and the risks Debtors could face in bankruptcy." He violated 528(a) because he did not sign the retainer agreement and
>>
>>
>>
>> "because the Retainer Agreement did not 'clearly and conspicuously' explain the scope of services and fees. Id. Specifically, DeLuca excluded services using technical terms like 'nondischargeability allegations' and 'adversary proceedings,' which a layperson would not likely understand. Further, the standard form contract did not relate these services to a client additional services were likely to be needed, Debtors had no way of knowing which exclusions were likely to apply and what the chances were of facing increased legal fees."
>>
>>
>>
>> Judge Jury's concurrence says the unbundling is a "minefield" but makes an effort to explain when it is appropriate. "If done correctly, unbundling may be key to competent consumer bankruptcy attorneys providing much needed representation to debtors at an affordable price. Without the ability to unbundle adversaries, the flat fee which a consumer attorney would need to charge for basic bankruptcy representation might become prohibitive and exacerbate the already existing problem of pro se filings." It was "the initial intake interview that tripped DeLuca up because he did not properly define the goal of the representation of [the debtor]." "All the other ethical and statutory violations found by the bankruptcy judge flowed from this initial deficiency in the limited scope representation." She ended with her "suggestions for such attorneys to avoid violating ethical rules and the Bankruptcy Code when they limit the scope of representation of consumer debtors."
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Unbundling limits an attorney's influence on a case. Bundling requires inexperienced lawyers to represent debtors badly from start to finish. Why is this even considered a rational alternative?
Please fight this.
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Dec 19, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Nancy Clark nbc@blclaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Dear Members:
>
>
> Full disclosure, I'm on the committee too. The survey was prepared by a consumer bk attorney. The court is leaning toward clarify the current rule in light of In re Sear. They want comments to clarify or ferret out issues. Please comment freely, and with a little less fear (the courts like the status quo).
>
> Thank you,
> Nancy B. Clark
>
>> On Friday, December 19, 2014, Larry Simons larry@lsimonslaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> In the interest of full disclosure, I am on the committee discussing the limited scope, but I did not create the survey. The members of CDCBAA should realize that most of the members of the committee are primarily consumer bankruptcy attorneys, although there are some members like myself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 2:33 PM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Cc: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com
>> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Limited Scope of Representation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear List mates,
>>
>>
>>
>> When I took the survey, I provided detailed comments for almost every question, and I urge you to do the same. This will let the committee know why the idea of bundling is so bad for both attorneys and their clients.
>>
>>
>>
>> One overarching theme in my comments was that the Scope of Employment should include only those services that are common to all Chapter 7 cases. Since adversary proceedings, reaffirmations, motions for relief from the automatic stay, contested matters, etc. are not common to all Chapter 7 cases, they should not be included in the Scope. If these services are included in the Scope, then either the flat fees will shoot through the roof, or all Chapter 7 cases will be filed by pro se debtors.
>>
>>
>>
>> I suspect that the person, or persons, who prepared the questionnaire either have never practiced consumer bankruptcy and dont realize the work involved, or are descendants of Draco.
>>
>>
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas Gebelt
>>
>>
>>
>> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.
>>
>> Attorney at Law
>>
>> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt
>>
>> 15150 Hornell Street
>>
>> Whittier, CA 90604
>>
>> Phone: 562.777.9159
>>
>> FAX: 562.946.1365
>>
>> Email: ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com; ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com
>>
>> Web: www.goodbye2debt.com
>>
>> Blog: www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/
>>
>>
>>
>> Important notice required by 11 U.S.C. 528: We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief under the Bankruptcy Code.
>>
>>
>>
>> Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure. Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the original message and all copies.
>>
>>
>>
>> Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation, the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email does not contain any legal advice for you.
>>
>>
>>
>> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue code, or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2014 7:43 AM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [cdcbaa] Limited Scope of Representation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> It is crucial that every good bankruptcy attorney complete this survey and state that the scope of appearance should not include contested matters or adversary proceedings. Bad and inexperienced attorneys will include those as part of an unrealistic flat fee and offer shoddy representation, in which they have no incentive to litigate the clients best interests but instead every incentive to settle or surrender. This would be a boon to the credit card industry, and the number of 523 complaints would go way up because they would get lots of quick settlements.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> James R. Selth
>> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
>> Weintraub & Selth, APC
>> 11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1170
>> Los Angeles, California 90025
>> Telephone: (310) 207-1494
>> Facsimile: (310) 442-0660
>> E-Mail: jim@wsrlaw.net
>>
>> *Certified by State Bar of California as Certified Legal Specialist in Bankruptcy Law
>>
>> NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: THIS E-MAIL IS MEANT FOR ONLY THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THE TRANSMISSION AND THIS COMMUNICATION IS INTENDED TO BE PRIVILEGED BY LAW. IF YOU RECEIVED THIS E-MAIL IN ERROR, ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY OF THE ERROR BY RETURN-E-MAIL AND PLEASE DELETE THIS MESSAGE FROM YOUR SYSTEM. THANK YOU IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:54 PM
>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Limited Scope of Representation
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I agree. This is an important survey. I'm on the ad hoc committee with the Judges (Jury and Tighe) that are in charge of recommending the changes to the Rules Committee. We are fortunate that they want input from all relevant groups and individuals. I've been told that they've already decided about the 341a meetings (no unbundling will be allowed there, despite my sort of "lone wolf" arguments to the contrary), but everything else is open to debate.
>>
>> So this is the time to be heard. As our profit margins decline along with demand for our services, the last thing we need mandated is more responsibility for less pay. We are, nevertheless, very fortunate to be practicing here because other districts have some frighteningly Draconian attorney responsibilities in Chapter 7.
>>
>> My understanding is that the one large motivating factor behind the proposed changes to the limited scope agreement is the shoddy work done by attorneys (surely not part of our organization). So when answering the survey questions, try to think how your answers would help achieve the goal of "calling to task" the less experienced and perhaps less diligent attorneys out there, but be very careful that we are not punishing ourselves to achieve that purpose (which is precisely what I see happening).
>>
>>
>> *************************
>> Mark J. Markus
>> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
>> Mailing Address Only:
>> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
>> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
>> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
>> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
>> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
>> ________________________________________________
>> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
>> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed in this communication.
>>
>>
>> On 12/18/2014 8:56 PM, cdcbaa cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>> Hello:
>>
>>
>>
>> Plz take the survey.
>>
>>
>>
>> If the court says we have to do all of the things we now unbundle, we will be the debtors' slaves. If you have to defend an adversary, do you have to hire and pay for experts out of your own pocket? Take the survey. Tell the court they will be shoving down our throats hundreds of hours a year of uncompensated representation.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tell the court we don't want to have to raise fees for everyone to pay for the 1 in a thousand lawsuit, we don't want to have to opine, for free, if a reaff will be affordable to the debtor. Also let them know that inexperienced lawyers can refer adversaries to experienced counsel, demanding that inexperienced counsel do adversaries will lead to unfortunate results.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>>
>>
>> d
>>
>> Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Dec 17, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Christine Wilton attorneychristine@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> I just took the survey and I believe that every member who practices Chapter 7 cases needs to take the survey and give their input.
>>
>> Christine
>>
>>
>>
>> Christine A. Wilton, Esq. >> Law Office of Christine A. Wilton >>
>> 5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
>>
>> Huntington Beach, CA 92649
>>
>> Office: 714-533-9210
>> Fax: 714-489-8150
>> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
>> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
>> ************************************************************
>> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments, is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
>> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:55 AM, nclark@blclaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Members:
>>
>>
>>
>> The Limited Scope of Representation Committee has created a survey to solicit comments on changes they are considering to the limited scope of appearance. Please take a moment out of your day to fill out the survey
>>
>> http://goo.gl/forms/mX7Gv8cK4x.
>>
>>
>>
>> I will be reposting the survey periodically until the first week of January 2015.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for your participation.
>>
>> Nancy B. Clark
>>
>> Attorney at Law
>>
>> Borowitz & Clark, LLP
>> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>> West Covina, CA 91791
>>
>> www.BorowitzClark.com
>> Office: (626) 332-8600
>> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
>
> --
> Nancy B. Clark
> Borowitz & Clark, LLP
> 100 N. Barranca Street, Suite 250
> West Covina, CA 91791
> Tel: (626) 332-8600
> Fax: (626) 332-8644
> Sent from Gmail Mobile
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I am on the committee too. I am possibly related to Draco.
In my opinion (apology for the obvious), there must be informed consent for
an attorney to avoid having to represent a client in an adversary.
When a client walks into your office, you should be able to reliably
predict what will happen during the course of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If
you can't, you're not spending enough time analyzing the client's
situation.
Your clients will fall into three categories:
1. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, will not be
necessary.
2. Virtual certainty that a particular service, like adversary, WILL be
necessary.
3. Toss up but there is a likelihood.
Why shouldn't your clients, particularly those in categories 2 and 3, be
given informed consent that the bankruptcy is going to (or may) throw their
life in a tailspin? An analysis of those risks should be mandatory.
It's not okay to throw them in a chapter and walk away.
I sympathize with Mark's point in particular. The schedules he prepares are
meticulous and those of his clients who don't need representation are not
forced to pay a premium $50 to $100 for an attorney to hold their hands at
the 341. Is the Central District willing to tap those people for an extra
$50 to $100 for the benefit of all those who are scared to death of the
Trustee, often their first and only experience with the judiciary, who
suddenly have no attorney and need to amend their schedules. They have no
idea what that even means. It's an easy yes for me.
-Mike
On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, jhayes@hayesbklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *DeLuca v. Seare (In re Seare) , --- BR --- (9th Cir. BAP Aug, 2014) *
> Issue: Did the court properly sanction the chapter 7 debtor's attorney
> for not representing the debtor in a non-dischargeability action?
>
> Holding: Yes, for many reasons but most importantly for not properly
> defining the goals of the representation at the outset and for not getting
> informed consent to the "unbundling."
>
> Standard: abuse of discretion
>
> Judge Bruce Markell, Nevada
>
> Kirscher, Taylor, Jury
>
> Opinion by Kirscher, concurrence by Jury
>
> Here the chapter 7 debtor had sued his former employer prepetition in
> District Court for sexual harassment but later he admitted that he had
> "embellished" the claims. Based on that, the District Court dismissed the
> case and entered judgment against him for attorneys fees of $67,000. The
> debtor then filed chapter 7 using attorney DeLuca. The employer filed a
> 523 complaint against the debtor and DeLuca told the debtor to find someone
> else to defend him. The debtor filed an answer in pro per and attended the
> status conference. At that time, Judge Markell issued an OSC against
> DeLuca re why he should not be sanctioned for "Failing to Represent Debtor
> in the . . . Adversary Proceeding. DeLuca responded saying that his 19
> page retainer agreement expressly excluded adversary proceedings from the
> representation. In fact the debtor initialed every page of the retainer
> agreement although apparently no one from the DeLuca office went through it
> with him. Also DeLuca tried to dodge responsibility by saying that he had
> no reason to believe that a complaint may be on the way. The court clearly
> did not believe that and said that it was so obvious it was coming there
> might not have been a reason for filing the case in the first place. After
> an evidentiary hearing, the court ordered DeLuca to return the $2,000 fee
> and "that for the next two years DeLuca provide a copy of the Sanctions
> Opinion to future adversary clients whose case he declines." DeLuca
> appealed.
>
>
> The BAP affirmed. In a very long opinion, the BAP looked first (as did
> Markell) at the Nevada Rules of Professional Responsibility.
> "Specifically, the court found that as a result of a lack of communication
> at the initial consultation DeLuca failed in his primary duty
> ascertaining Debtors objectives and defining the goals of the
> representation." The big problem according to Markell and the BAP is that
> DeLuca spent very little time with the client at the outset and left the
> rest to his staff. The "unbundling" "decision" was not made with any
> thought - it was part of the preprinted retainer agreement. The retainer
> agreement said that representation in adversary proceedings would be
> extra. "The bankruptcy court held that DeLuca had further violated NRPC
> 1.2(c) because he did not obtain Debtors informed consent in limiting the
> scope of his representation." When DeLuca later told the debtor he would
> not represent him in the adversary, he "changed" the basis of the
> agreement.
>
>
> Markell also found and the BAP agreed that DeLuca violated section
> 707(b)(4)(C) by failing to "perform a reasonable investigation." He also
> violated 526(a) and 528(a) by "failing to accurately explain that he would
> not represent Debtors in an adversary proceeding and the risks Debtors
> could face in bankruptcy." He violated 528(a) because he did not sign the
> retainer agreement and
>
>
> "because the Retainer Agreement did not 'clearly and conspicuously'
> explain the scope of services and fees. Id. Specifically, DeLuca excluded
> services using technical terms like 'nondischargeability allegations' and
> 'adversary proceedings,' which a layperson would not likely understand.
> Further, the standard form contract did not relate these services to a
> clients particular case, and, without clarification from DeLuca about
> which additional services were likely to be needed, Debtors had no way of
> knowing which exclusions were likely to apply and what the chances were of
> facing increased legal fees."
>
>
> Judge Jury's concurrence says the unbundling is a "minefield" but makes an
> effort to explain when it is appropriate. "If done correctly, unbundling
> may be key to competent consumer bankruptcy attorneys providing much needed
> representation to debtors at an affordable price. Without the ability to
> unbundle adversaries, the flat fee which a consumer attorney would need to
> charge for basic bankruptcy representation might become prohibitive and
> exacerbate the already existing problem of pro se filings." It was "the
> initial intake interview that tripped DeLuca up because he did not properly
> define the goal of the representation of [the debtor]." "All the other
> ethical and statutory violations found by the bankruptcy judge flowed from
> this initial deficiency in the limited scope representation." She ended
> with her "suggestions for such attorneys to avoid violating ethical rules
> and the Bankruptcy Code when they limit the scope of representation of
> consumer debtors."
>
>
>
>
>
I am on the committee too. I am possibly related to Draco.st be informed consent for an attorney to avoid having to represent a client in an adversary.When a client walks into your office, you should be able to reliably predict what will happen during the c
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I took the survey. I would cease representing chapter 7 clients if that stuff was required. I would have to increase my fees for all clients for the potential services that I might be required to provide for a few (kind of like my health insurance), and the fees would be so high that no one would pay them. That means more work for document preparers who already do a crappy job.
I put my name and email address at the end. Don't know if that was ok or not but I wanted to let someone follow up with me if they wanted and to be taken seriously in my responses.
Vernon L. Ellicott, Esq.
Certified Family Law Specialist
California State Bar Board of Legal Specialization
Family Law, Bankruptcy, and Estate Planning
Law Offices of Vernon L. Ellicott
325 E. Hillcrest Drive, Suite 150 23929 Valencia Blvd., Suite 411
Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-7799 Valencia, CA 91355
(805) 446-6262 (661) 222-2922
(805) 446-6264 Fax
This e-mail transmission and any documents, files, or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information from the LAW OFFICES OF VERNON L. ELLICOTT that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, or by telephone at (805) 446-6262, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments and all copies of any kind, without reading them or saving them in any way. Thank you.
A bad day on the bike is better than a good day on the golf course!
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Is there a way to reach out to non-members to gather their input and get it
to the committee? I can't imagine that even the fly-by-night attorneys
malpracticing with chapter 7 cases would want to get locked into signing
reaff's, defending adversary cases & MFRs for one low fee.
But I think if we prepare the schedules we should show up at the 341a or at
least collect the extra $75 bucks to have an appearance attorney show up.
I can't tell you how many times I have been at 341a hearings and devastated
debtors like deer caught in headlights are left to explain the shoddy
schedule preparation work or explain things to the client and to the
Chapter 7 Trustee. This is especially horrifying to watch when you have a
newly retired sr. citizen with little money, but have equity in their home
which wasn't properly exempted and have a trustee chase after selling the
home. I have seen it twice in 2 years. I'm sure others of you have seen
even worse.
And at the same time, I wish we had some sort of disclosure approved by the
court that we can hand to a client in plain English that EVERY CHAPTER 7
debtor would be provided as a mandatory disclosure. It would let them know
a bit about reaffirmations, Relief From Stays and potential Adversary
proceedings.
Okay enough out of me. Thanks for reading and considering.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.
OFF: (818) 734-7223
CEL: (818) 554-9922
Hi:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Hello:
Plz take the survey.
If the court says we have to do all of the things we now unbundle, we will be the debtors' slaves. If you have to defend an adversary, do you have to hire and pay for experts out of your own pocket? Take the survey. Tell the court they will be shoving down our throats hundreds of hours a year of uncompensated representation.
Tell the court we don't want to have to raise fees for everyone to pay for the 1 in a thousand lawsuit, we don't want to have to opine, for free, if a reaff will be affordable to the debtor. Also let them know that inexperienced lawyers can refer adversaries to experienced counsel, demanding that inexperienced counsel do adversaries will lead to unfortunate results.
Thank you,
d
Dennis McGoldrick, 350 S. Crenshaw Bl., #A207B, Torrance, Ca 90503 310-328-1001-voice
> On Dec 17, 2014, at 9:08 AM, Christine Wilton attorneychristine@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I just took the survey and I believe that every member who practices Chapter 7 cases needs to take the survey and give their input.
>
> Christine
>
> Christine A. Wilton, Esq. > Law Office of Christine A. Wilton > 5011 Argosy Avenue, Suite 3
> Huntington Beach, CA 92649
> Office: 714-533-9210
> Fax: 714-489-8150
> Email: attorneychristine@gmail.com
> Blog: www.losangelesbankruptcylawmonitor.com
> ************************************************************
> Confidentiality and Privilege. This e-mail message, including attachments, is intended solely for review by the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or distribution is prohibited. Review by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) shall not constitute a waiver of any ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE or ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PROTECTION that may apply to this communication. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by return e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
> Tax Advice Disclosure. Any tax information or written tax advice contained in this email message, including attachments, is not intended to and cannot be used by any taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding tax penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer. (The foregoing legend has been affixed pursuant to U.S. Treasury Regulations governing tax practice.)
>
>> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 8:55 AM, nclark@blclaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Dear Members:
>>
>>
>>
>> The Limited Scope of Representation Committee has created a survey to solicit comments on changes they are considering to the limited scope of appearance. Please take a moment out of your day to fill out the survey
>>
>> http://goo.gl/forms/mX7Gv8cK4x.
>>
>> I will be reposting the survey periodically until the first week of January 2015.
>>
>> Thank you for your participation.
>>
>> Nancy B. Clark
>> Attorney at Law
>> Borowitz & Clark, LLP
>> 100 N. Barranca Avenue, Suite 250
>> West Covina, CA 91791
>> www.BorowitzClark.com
>> Office: (626) 332-8600
>> Fax: (626) 332-8644
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.