Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Debtor's prior counsel is getting thrown under the bus, but it's his fault
for not letting the Debtor review & sign the schedules before he filed
them, for liening up her house, and for transferring her house out of her
name. Debtor is now attempting to convert to CH 13, which is being
contested under *Marrama* by a creditor and the CH7T. Creditor has cited *Wei
v. State of Hawaii* for the proposition that litigants are bound by the
conduct of their attorneys, absent egregious circumstances. 763 F.2d 370,
372 (9th Cir. 1985).
I have some "egregious circumstances", but I am not finding case law to
support me. I have Shepardized *Wei *and *Marrama* (well to the extent
that Fastcase can Shepardize), and I am not finding a case that says, "yes,
it's all your attorney's fault, so we're going to let you go." They all
seem to say, "too bad, so sad, you're screwed."
Does anyone have a case that can help me here?
I did find one case (criminal, Holland v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2549 (2010).)
that has to do with equitable tolling where the atty's conduct was so bad
that his failure to file a writ petition by the deadline may not be imputed
to the client. (He missed a statute of limitations deadline for a writ of
habeas corpus and failed to communicate with his client. The defendant
wrote to his attorney numerous times seeking crucial information and asking
for direction; he also repeatedly contacted the state courts, their clerks,
and the Florida State Bar Association in an effort to have his
attorney removed from his case. He then filed his own writ petition after
the lawyer missed the deadline. The court sent it back to the lower court
to determine whether the facts were egregious enough to warrant equitable
tolling, and indicated that they could be.)
**
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California
Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600
F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
**For a quicker response, email me at holly@roarklawoffices.com.
I only use gmail for my listservs, and am likely to miss private emails
directed to my gmail account.**
Debtor's prior counsel is getting thrown under the bus, but it's his fault for not letting the Debtor review & sign the schedules before he filed them, for liening up her house, and for transferring her house out of her name. Debtor is now attempting to convert to CH 13, which is being contested under Marrama by a creditor and the CH7T. Creditor has cited Wei v. State of Hawaii for the proposition that litigants are bound by the
conduct of their attorneys, absent egregious circumstances. 763 F.2d 370, 372
(9th Cir. 1985).
The post was migrated from Yahoo.