A Letter from Judge Naugle
Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 11:56 am
He sent you a letter?? Does your Declaration of Limited Scope exclude representation on reaffs?
______________________
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
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 (or in any attachment).
----- Original Message -----
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:32 AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] A Letter from Judge Naugle
I received written correspondence from Judge Naugle who is verbally frowning on the fact that my clients are not represented with regard to their Reaffirmation Agreement. He uses words like "rare," "abandon... clients" and "less reputable practitioners." Additionally, he says he sets hearings on Reaff approval and attorney's fees review at the same time.
Of course, there are very good reasons for not representing clients during the Reaff phase of their case, and I stated those at the OUST Brown Bag with Judge Zurzolo, et.al. In fact, it's my opinion that it's the best way to help the client if (a) attorney doesn't represent and (b) judge doesn't certify. In that situation, the debtor has done their duty, there is no Reaffirmation and the client is best protected into the future from deficiency balances.
On the other hand, if the attorney represents and certifies the agreement, the judge will (likely) approve it since the judge is CYA'ed. This, im my opinion, is not the best result for the client, and potentially, for us.
Anyway, I find the letter a very interesting strongarm tactic from a judge I've never met, and his language, "colorful" to say the least. Yes, I know he's retiring soon (thanks David Tilem for that heads-up back in 05!), but is there any response to this other than to sign the Reaff? This just feels... wrong.
Hale
He sent you a letter?? Does your Declaration
of Limited Scope exclude representation on reaffs?
______________________Mark J. MarkusLaw
Office of Mark J. Markus11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403Studio City, CA91604-2652(818)509-1173 (818)509-1460 (fax)web: http://www.bklaw.com/This Firm is aQualified 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 addresseeonly. 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 (or in any attachment).
----- Original Message -----
From:
Hale Andrew
Antico, Esq.
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:32
AM
Subject: [cdcbaa] A Letter from Judge
Naugle
I received written correspondence from Judge Naugle who is
verbally frowning on the fact that my clients are not represented with regard
to their Reaffirmation Agreement. He uses words like "rare," "abandon...
clients" and "less reputable practitioners." Additionally, he says he
sets hearings on Reaff approval and attorney's fees review at the same
time.
Of course, there are very good reasons for not representing
clients during the Reaff phase of their case, and I stated those at the OUST
Brown Bag with Judge Zurzolo, et.al. In fact, it's my opinion that it's
the best way to help the client if (a) attorney doesn't represent and (b) judge doesn't certify. In that situation, the debtor has done their duty, there is no Reaffirmation and the client is best protected into the future from deficiency balances.
On the other hand, if the attorney represents and certifies
the agreement, the judge will (likely) approve it since the judge is
CYA'ed. This, im my opinion, is not the best result for the client, and
potentially, for us.
Anyway, I find the letter a very interesting strongarm
tactic from a judge I've never met, and his language, "colorful" to say the
least. Yes, I know he's retiring soon (thanks David Tilem for that heads-up back in 05!), but is there any response to this other than to sign
the Reaff? This just feels... wrong.
Hale
The post was migrated from Yahoo.