Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Dennis, I did not scream about appearance attorneys being banned in California; I screamed about them being banned by Judge Bohm in SDTx.
I am aware that California has a different standard with respect to the use of appearance attorneys, though I am sure you are aware that the use of such outside professionals does not constitute unbundling inasmuch as the attorney of record remains ultimately responsible for the matter before the court.
Unbundling refers to limited-scope representation. Though there is a local form for the limitation of representation, that does not speak to representation by the attorney of record at the meeting of creditors through the use of appearance counsel. Such an arrangement is handled outside of the bounds of the local form.
I never stated, nor did I intimate, that a judge in Texas purported to change our State Bar's findings. Nor, for that matter, did I state or intimate that a Texas judge write an opinion that California lawyers cannot unbundle.Use of appearance attorneys is not the ultimate form of unbundling; it is, however, a form of maintaining office efficiency without compromising the representation afforded to a client. Bankruptcy lawyers came late to the party on this matter, as litigation attorneys have been doing it for decades.
My point was that if one seeks to employ appearance attorneys then the attorney of record must do so in a responsible manner.
I apologize to you as well as to the rest of the listserv in the event that my point wasn't crystal clear.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart solutions to their bill problems.
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
Pasadena CA 91105-2656
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
New York NY 10118
T: 626-808-4343 x704
E: jay@sflawca.com
Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
On Jul 20, 2013, at 12:05 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
>
> Jay:
>
> In emails, CAPS indicate screaming. You screamed about appearance attorneys being banned. I simply state that California has a much different standard and the holding is nothing to scream about.
>
> In the early 2000's the California State Bar found that unbundling legal services was good for consumers. Our court has embraced that finding and even has a form for us to file showing that we are representing debtors in a limited fashion. Use of appearance attorneys is the ultimate form of unbundling. A judge in Texas cannot change our State Bar's findings, nor can a Texas judge write an opinion that California lawyers cannot unbundle, given our court's endorsement of unbundling.
>
> dennis
>
> btw, I did read your screaming subject line
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 19, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Dennis, read the subject line. It speaks to SDTx cases in front of Judge Bohm. Seems crystal clear to me.
>>
>> I, too, have no problem with those who use appearance attorneys. Not sure why you or anyone would believe otherwise.
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2013 10:21 PM, "cdcbaa" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Jay:
>>
>> There are many appearance attorneys in our district. The State Bar has found there use is allowed. You put the subject line above in your email "BANNED". I stand by my friends who appear for others and wanted to make sure our bar knew that our State Bar approved the practice, regardless of your characterization.
>>
>> d
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dennis, you underestimate me.
>>>
>>> I'm well aware of the fact that appearance attorneys are permitted in California, and that they're widely used in CDCA as well as elsewhere.
>>>
>>> No attorney should be able to rely upon, "I'm new in these parts," as an excuse for ignorance of the law or local practice. I may be newly admitted in California, but I'm not so green as to presume to undertake representation without a comprehensive knowledge of the law as well as local rules.
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in being seen as a bad apple, nor in squandering my hard-earned reputation as a good and careful attorney.
>>>
>>> My point, as clearly stated in my original email on this thread, was that the case shows how NOT to run a law practice. The attorneys could have made the same lapses in professional judgment without the use of appearance counsel.
>>>
>>> -------------
>>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
>>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>>>
>>> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart solutions to their bill problems.
>>>
>>> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>>>
>>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
>>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>>>
>>> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
>>> New York NY 10118
>>>
>>> T: 626-808-4343 x704
>>> E: jay@sflawca.com
>>>
>>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>>>
>>> cdcbaa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cdcbaa:
>>>>
>>>> The facts in the case Mr. Fleischman refers are pretty bad, but
>>>> realize the State Bar of California has made a finding that fees can
>>>> be less expensive if attorneys are allowed to use appearance
>>>> attorneys. Jay hasn't been here that long, so he probably doesn't know>>>> that the State Bar has made such a finding and approved using
>>>> appearance attorneys. I would not worry about a Texas opinion based on>>>> such egregious facts being imported to California, when our bar
>>>> association has approved appearance attorneys.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Jay Fleischman >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Courtesy of Pamela L. Stewart, a NACBA Director who practices in
>>>>> Houston, comes this 92 page opinion that blows the doors off a large
>>>>> filer's practices of using appearance attorneys.
>>>>>
>>>>> The decision is scathing, but a useful roadmap of how NOT to run a
>>>>> firm. Not necessarily an indictment of using appearance counsel per
>>>>> se, and I think the Judge went a wee bit overboard here.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
>>>>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>>>>>
>>>>> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
>>>>> solutions to their bill problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>>>>>
>>>>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
>>>>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>>>>>
>>>>> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
>>>>> New York NY 10118
>>>>>
>>>>> T: 626-808-4343 x704
>>>>> E: jay@sflawca.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
>>>>> me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Jay:
In emails, CAPS indicate screaming. You screamed about appearance attorneys being banned. I simply state that California has a much different standard and the holding is nothing to scream about.
In the early 2000's the California State Bar found that unbundling legal services was good for consumers. Our court has embraced that finding and even has a form for us to file showing that we are representing debtors in a limited fashion. Use of appearance attorneys is the ultimate form of unbundling. A judge in Texas cannot change our State Bar's findings, nor can a Texas judge write an opinion that California lawyers cannot unbundle, given our court's endorsement of unbundling.
dennis
btw, I did read your screaming subject line
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 19, 2013, at 7:10 AM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
> Dennis, read the subject line. It speaks to SDTx cases in front of Judge Bohm. Seems crystal clear to me.
>
> I, too, have no problem with those who use appearance attorneys. Not sure why you or anyone would believe otherwise.
>
> On Jul 18, 2013 10:21 PM, "cdcbaa" wrote:
>>
>> Jay:
>>
>> There are many appearance attorneys in our district. The State Bar has found there use is allowed. You put the subject line above in your email "BANNED". I stand by my friends who appear for others and wanted to make sure our bar knew that our State Bar approved the practice, regardless of your characterization.
>>
>> d
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Dennis, you underestimate me.
>>>
>>> I'm well aware of the fact that appearance attorneys are permitted in California, and that they're widely used in CDCA as well as elsewhere.
>>>
>>> No attorney should be able to rely upon, "I'm new in these parts," as an excuse for ignorance of the law or local practice. I may be newly admitted in California, but I'm not so green as to presume to undertake representation without a comprehensive knowledge of the law as well as local rules.
>>>
>>> I'm not interested in being seen as a bad apple, nor in squandering my hard-earned reputation as a good and careful attorney.
>>>
>>> My point, as clearly stated in my original email on this thread, was that the case shows how NOT to run a law practice. The attorneys could have made the same lapses in professional judgment without the use of appearance counsel.
>>>
>>> -------------
>>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
>>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>>>
>>> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart solutions to their bill problems.
>>>
>>> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>>>
>>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
>>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>>>
>>> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
>>> New York NY 10118
>>>
>>> T: 626-808-4343 x704
>>> E: jay@sflawca.com
>>>
>>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>>>
>>> cdcbaa wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Cdcbaa:
>>>>
>>>> The facts in the case Mr. Fleischman refers are pretty bad, but
>>>> realize the State Bar of California has made a finding that fees can
>>>> be less expensive if attorneys are allowed to use appearance
>>>> attorneys. Jay hasn't been here that long, so he probably doesn't know>>>> that the State Bar has made such a finding and approved using
>>>> appearance attorneys. I would not worry about a Texas opinion based on>>>> such egregious facts being imported to California, when our bar
>>>> association has approved appearance attorneys.
>>>>
>>>> d
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPad
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Jay Fleischman >>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Courtesy of Pamela L. Stewart, a NACBA Director who practices in
>>>>> Houston, comes this 92 page opinion that blows the doors off a large
>>>>> filer's practices of using appearance attorneys.
>>>>>
>>>>> The decision is scathing, but a useful roadmap of how NOT to run a
>>>>> firm. Not necessarily an indictment of using appearance counsel per
>>>>> se, and I think the Judge went a wee bit overboard here.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------
>>>>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
>>>>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>>>>>
>>>>> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
>>>>> solutions to their bill problems.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>>>>>
>>>>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
>>>>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>>>>>
>>>>> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
>>>>> New York NY 10118
>>>>>
>>>>> T: 626-808-4343 x704
>>>>> E: jay@sflawca.com
>>>>>
>>>>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
>>>>> me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Dennis, read the subject line. It speaks to SDTx cases in front of Judge
Bohm. Seems crystal clear to me.
I, too, have no problem with those who use appearance attorneys. Not sure
why you or anyone would believe otherwise.
On Jul 18, 2013 10:21 PM, "cdcbaa" wrote:
> **
>
>
> Jay:
>
> There are many appearance attorneys in our district. The State Bar has
> found there use is allowed. You put the subject line above in your email
> "BANNED". I stand by my friends who appear for others and wanted to make
> sure our bar knew that our State Bar approved the practice, regardless of
> your characterization.
>
> d
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
>
>
>
> Dennis, you underestimate me.
>
> I'm well aware of the fact that appearance attorneys are permitted in
> California, and that they're widely used in CDCA as well as elsewhere.
>
> No attorney should be able to rely upon, "I'm new in these parts," as an
> excuse for ignorance of the law or local practice. I may be newly admitted
> in California, but I'm not so green as to presume to undertake
> representation without a comprehensive knowledge of the law as well as
> local rules.
>
> I'm not interested in being seen as a bad apple, nor in squandering my
> hard-earned reputation as a good and careful attorney.
>
> My point, as clearly stated in my original email on this thread, was that
> the case shows how NOT to run a law practice. The attorneys could have
> made the same lapses in professional judgment without the use of appearance
> counsel.
>
> -------------
> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>
> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
> solutions to their bill problems.
>
> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>
> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>
> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
> New York NY 10118
>
> T: 626-808-4343 x704
> E: jay@sflawca.com
>
> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by
> email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>
> cdcbaa wrote:
>
>
> Cdcbaa:
>
> The facts in the case Mr. Fleischman refers are pretty bad, but
> realize the State Bar of California has made a finding that fees can
> be less expensive if attorneys are allowed to use appearance
> attorneys. Jay hasn't been here that long, so he probably doesn't know
> that the State Bar has made such a finding and approved using
> appearance attorneys. I would not worry about a Texas opinion based on
> such egregious facts being imported to California, when our bar
> association has approved appearance attorneys.
>
> d
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Jay Fleischman > wrote:
>
>
> Courtesy of Pamela L. Stewart, a NACBA Director who practices in
> Houston, comes this 92 page opinion that blows the doors off a large
> filer's practices of using appearance attorneys.
>
> The decision is scathing, but a useful roadmap of how NOT to run a
> firm. Not necessarily an indictment of using appearance counsel per
> se, and I think the Judge went a wee bit overboard here.
>
> -------------
> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>
> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
> solutions to their bill problems.
>
> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>
> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>
> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
> New York NY 10118
>
> T: 626-808-4343 x704
> E: jay@sflawca.com
>
> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
> me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>
>
>
>
Dennis, read the subject line. It speaks to SDTx cases in front of Judge Bohm. Seems crystal clear to me.
I, too, have no problem with those who use appearance attorneys. Not sure why you or anyone would believe otherwise.
On Jul 18, 2013 10:21 PM, "cdcbaa" <cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
Jay:There are many appearance attorneys in our district. The State Bar has found there use is allowed. You put the subject line above in your email "BANNED". I stand by my friends who appear for others and wanted to make sure our bar knew that our State Bar approved the practice, regardless of your characterization.
dSent from my iPadOn Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Jay Fleischman <bankruptcy@gmail.com> wrote:
Dennis, you underestimate me.
I'm well aware of the fact that appearance attorneys are permitted in California, and that they're widely used in CDCA as well as elsewhere.
No attorney should be able to rely upon, "I'm new in these parts," as an excuse for ignorance of the law or local practice. I may be newly admitted in California, but I'm not so green as to presume to undertake representation without a comprehensive knowledge of the law as well as local rules.
I'm not interested in being seen as a bad apple, nor in squandering my hard-earned reputation as a good and careful attorney.
My point, as clearly stated in my original email on this thread, was that the case shows how NOT to run a law practice. The attorneys could have made the same lapses in professional judgment without the use of appearance counsel.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart solutions to their bill problems.
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
Pasadena CA 91105-2656
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
New York NY 10118
T: 626-808-4343 x704
E: jay@sflawca.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Jay:
There are many appearance attorneys in our district. The State Bar has found there use is allowed. You put the subject line above in your email "BANNED". I stand by my friends who appear for others and wanted to make sure our bar knew that our State Bar approved the practice, regardless of your characterization.
d
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 18, 2013, at 9:43 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
> Dennis, you underestimate me.
>
> I'm well aware of the fact that appearance attorneys are permitted in California, and that they're widely used in CDCA as well as elsewhere.
>
> No attorney should be able to rely upon, "I'm new in these parts," as an excuse for ignorance of the law or local practice. I may be newly admitted in California, but I'm not so green as to presume to undertake representation without a comprehensive knowledge of the law as well as local rules.
>
> I'm not interested in being seen as a bad apple, nor in squandering my hard-earned reputation as a good and careful attorney.
>
> My point, as clearly stated in my original email on this thread, was that the case shows how NOT to run a law practice. The attorneys could have made the same lapses in professional judgment without the use of appearance counsel.
>
> -------------
> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>
> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart solutions to their bill problems.
>
> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>
> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>
> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
> New York NY 10118
>
> T: 626-808-4343 x704
> E: jay@sflawca.com
>
> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>
> cdcbaa wrote:
>>
>> Cdcbaa:
>>
>> The facts in the case Mr. Fleischman refers are pretty bad, but
>> realize the State Bar of California has made a finding that fees can
>> be less expensive if attorneys are allowed to use appearance
>> attorneys. Jay hasn't been here that long, so he probably doesn't know
>> that the State Bar has made such a finding and approved using
>> appearance attorneys. I would not worry about a Texas opinion based on
>> such egregious facts being imported to California, when our bar
>> association has approved appearance attorneys.
>>
>> d
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Jay Fleischman > > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Courtesy of Pamela L. Stewart, a NACBA Director who practices in
>>> Houston, comes this 92 page opinion that blows the doors off a large
>>> filer's practices of using appearance attorneys.
>>>
>>> The decision is scathing, but a useful roadmap of how NOT to run a
>>> firm. Not necessarily an indictment of using appearance counsel per
>>> se, and I think the Judge went a wee bit overboard here.
>>>
>>> -------------
>>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
>>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>>>
>>> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
>>> solutions to their bill problems.
>>>
>>> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>>>
>>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
>>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>>>
>>> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
>>> New York NY 10118
>>>
>>> T: 626-808-4343 x704
>>> E: jay@sflawca.com
>>>
>>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
>>> me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Doesn't this opinion give the green light to attorneys to pay less
attention to ethics laws and duty of diligence etc? Those sanctions were
much too low!
Sincerely,
Michael Avanesian
Law Offices of David A. Tilem
www.tilemlaw.com
818-507-6000
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:32 PM, cdcbaa wrote:
> **
>
>
> Cdcbaa:
>
> The facts in the case Mr. Fleischman refers are pretty bad, but realize
> the State Bar of California has made a finding that fees can be less
> expensive if attorneys are allowed to use appearance attorneys. Jay hasn't
> been here that long, so he probably doesn't know that the State Bar has
> made such a finding and approved using appearance attorneys. I would not
> worry about a Texas opinion based on such egregious facts being imported to
> California, when our bar association has approved appearance attorneys.
>
> d
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Jay Fleischman wrote:
>
>
>
> Courtesy of Pamela L. Stewart, a NACBA Director who practices in
> Houston, comes this 92 page opinion that blows the doors off a large
> filer's practices of using appearance attorneys.
>
> The decision is scathing, but a useful roadmap of how NOT to run a
> firm. Not necessarily an indictment of using appearance counsel per
> se, and I think the Judge went a wee bit overboard here.
>
> -------------
> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>
> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
> solutions to their bill problems.
>
> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>
> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>
> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
> New York NY 10118
>
> T: 626-808-4343 x704
> E: jay@sflawca.com
>
> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
> me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>
>
>
Doesn't this opinion give the green light to attorneys to pay less attention to ethics laws and duty of diligence etc? Those sanctions were much too low!
Sincerely, Michael AvanesianLaw Offices of David A. Tilemwww.tilemlaw.com818-507-6000
On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 9:32 PM, cdcbaa <cdcbaamailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Dennis, you underestimate me.
I'm well aware of the fact that appearance attorneys are permitted in
California, and that they're widely used in CDCA as well as elsewhere.
No attorney should be able to rely upon, "I'm new in these parts," as an
excuse for ignorance of the law or local practice. I may be newly
admitted in California, but I'm not so green as to presume to undertake
representation without a comprehensive knowledge of the law as well as
local rules.
I'm not interested in being seen as a bad apple, nor in squandering my
hard-earned reputation as a good and careful attorney.
My point, as clearly stated in my original email on this thread, was
that the case shows how NOT to run a law practice. The attorneys could
have made the same lapses in professional judgment without the use of
appearance counsel.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
solutions to their bill problems.
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
Pasadena CA 91105-2656
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
New York NY 10118
T: 626-808-4343 x704
E: jay@sflawca.com
Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me
by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
cdcbaa wrote:
>
> Cdcbaa:
>
> The facts in the case Mr. Fleischman refers are pretty bad, but
> realize the State Bar of California has made a finding that fees can
> be less expensive if attorneys are allowed to use appearance
> attorneys. Jay hasn't been here that long, so he probably doesn't know
> that the State Bar has made such a finding and approved using
> appearance attorneys. I would not worry about a Texas opinion based on
> such egregious facts being imported to California, when our bar
> association has approved appearance attorneys.
>
> d
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Jay Fleischman > wrote:
>
>>
>> Courtesy of Pamela L. Stewart, a NACBA Director who practices in
>> Houston, comes this 92 page opinion that blows the doors off a large
>> filer's practices of using appearance attorneys.
>>
>> The decision is scathing, but a useful roadmap of how NOT to run a
>> firm. Not necessarily an indictment of using appearance counsel per
>> se, and I think the Judge went a wee bit overboard here.
>>
>> -------------
>> Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
>> Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
>>
>> I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
>> solutions to their bill problems.
>>
>> http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
>>
>> 556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
>> Pasadena CA 91105-2656
>>
>> 350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
>> New York NY 10118
>>
>> T: 626-808-4343 x704
>> E: jay@sflawca.com
>>
>> Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
>> me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
>>
>
>
Dennis, you underestimate me.
I'm well aware of the fact that appearance attorneys are permitted in California, and that they're widely used in CDCA as well as elsewhere.
No attorney should be able to rely upon, "I'm new in these parts," as an excuse for ignorance of the law or local practice. I may be newly admitted in California, but I'm not so green as to presume to undertake representation without a comprehensive knowledge of the law as well as local rules.
I'm not interested in being seen as a bad apple, nor in squandering my hard-earned reputation as a good and careful attorney.
My point, as clearly stated in my original email on this thread, was that the case shows how NOT to run a law practice. The attorneys could have made the same lapses in professional judgment without the use of appearance counsel.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart solutions to their bill problems.
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
Pasadena CA 91105-2656
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
New York NY 10118
T: 626-808-4343 x704
E: jay@sflawca.com
Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
cdcbaa wrote:
Cdcbaa:
The facts in the case Mr. Fleischman refers are pretty bad, but
realize the State Bar of California has made a finding that fees can
be less expensive if attorneys are allowed to use appearance
attorneys. Jay hasn't been here that long, so he probably doesn't know
that the State Bar has made such a finding and approved using
appearance attorneys. I would not worry about a Texas opinion based on
such egregious facts being imported to California, when our bar
association has approved appearance attorneys.
d
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 17, 2013, at 1:50 PM, Jay Fleischman <bankruptcy@gmail.com
<mailto:bankruptcy@gmail.com>> wrote:
Courtesy of Pamela L. Stewart, a NACBA Director who practices in
Houston, comes this 92 page opinion that blows the doors off a large
filer's practices of using appearance attorneys.
The decision is scathing, but a useful roadmap of how NOT to run a
firm. Not necessarily an indictment of using appearance counsel per
se, and I think the Judge went a wee bit overboard here.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
solutions to their bill problems.
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
Pasadena CA 91105-2656
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
New York NY 10118
T: 626-808-4343 x704
E: jay@sflawca.com <mailto:jay%40sflawca.com>
Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Courtesy of Pamela L. Stewart, a NACBA Director who practices in
Houston, comes this 92 page opinion that blows the doors off a large
filer's practices of using appearance attorneys.
The decision is scathing, but a useful roadmap of how NOT to run a
firm. Not necessarily an indictment of using appearance counsel per
se, and I think the Judge went a wee bit overboard here.
Jay S. Fleischman, Esq.
Shaev & Fleischman, LLP
I help people in the Los Angeles area and New York City get smart
solutions to their bill problems.
http://www.ConsumerHelpCentral.com
556 S Fair Oaks Ave Ste 101-152
Pasadena CA 91105-2656
350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7210
New York NY 10118
T: 626-808-4343 x704
E: jay@sflawca.com
Email isn't secure, so it's not confidential. By communicating with
me by email, you understand that it's not confidential.
X-Attachment-Id: aed2030645e7f828_0.1
name="2013_07 Judge Bohm Appearance Atty. Opinion.pdf"
filename="2013_07 Judge Bohm Appearance Atty. Opinion.pdf"
X-Attachment-Id: aed2030645e7f828_0.1

The post was migrated from Yahoo.