Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

charset="UTF-8"
The case said that the debtors discharged a boatload of debt otherwise. The sanctions were quite mild, probably because the debtor was an admitted liar.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="iso-2022-jp"

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

By raising the bar so high, one likely outcome is the only practitioners
left will be those who charge more for all the extra time needed to comply
with requirements that may be onerous or burdensome, or non-attorneys who
skirt the rules and fail the consumer anyway. Either way, the consumer
loses, since the foreseeable effect will be to drive more people to the
corner paralegal who doesn't make things so complicated and expensive.
It's already a shrinking pie; it seems this gives the non-attorneys a larger
slice of it.
Hoping I'm wrong.
Hale
_____

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Wow, I disagree completely. Once an opinion like this is out there, it will come home to roost. We have to make sure we can differentiate ourselves from the facts in this case. Put a "dangers of bankruptcy" paragraph in y
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

It seems to me there are two elements that drive this case. The first is that the attorney seems to have a high volume, hands off practice, which the judge was probably aware of from all the other cases that he had seen from the atty. The second is that the attorney did not do his due diligence on the lawsuit. If he had read the papers, he could have told them that the adversary was likely and they would probably lose. But because of the way he let his staff do everything, he had set up a system that let volume dictate the level of his due diligence and it came back to bite him.
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Pat
Patrick T. Green
Attorney at Law
Fitzgerald & Green
1010 E. Union St. Ste. 206
Pasadena, CA 91106
Tel: 626-449-8433
Fax: 626-449-0565
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

charset="UTF-8"
I also specifically go through my long retainer agreement with the clients which specifically states that I do not represent them in a 727, 523 or any other claim unless we reach a separate agreement on the issue. If I have an inkling that such a complaint is coming, we discuss it and we agree to deal with it if it ever materializes.
Stella

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Reply-To: "arsen.pogosov@hotmail.com"
X-Original-Return-Path: "arsen.pogosov@hotmail.com"
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: groups-system
This is a surprising decision. I sympathize with the BAP trying to protect
clients from predatory ripoff artist attorneys.
However, it's hard to predict if an AP will be filed in a case. It's really
random and rare. Sometimes there's an ex-spouse with a grudge, and there's
simply no way that a "competent" attorney can reasonably expect an AP to
arise. In fact, with AP rates hovering around 1%, I think all competent
attorneys will always advise their clients that an AP is unlikely to happen.
The disclosure of limited scope of representation LBR form clearly
delineates if the bk attorney will represent the client in an AP. If those
boxes are not checked, then how can the BAP say that we are bound anyways to
defend our clients in any AP that arises in a case? It just doesn't make
any sense. We can't be forced to do hours and hours of extra work without
our consent or payment.
What if the client can't pay extra for the additional work involved?
Connected by DROID on Verizon Wireless

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

I don't think the dec re limited scope has any effect on an attorney's duty
of competence. The underlying policy to punish this attorney was predicated
on the duty to *help* your client *solve his problem*. This means doing
more than conducting a quick consultation where you sign a client up,
followed by a paralegal doing everything and a final review by an attorney
of the petition.
At a bare minimum it seems like if there is any indication that some debt
may be nondischargeable, the attorney has a duty to investigate. If there
is some chance that the debt will be nondischargeable, there must be *informed
consent* of the client which shows he understands what AP/nondischargeable
means and your policy regarding representation of client in the AP.
Now, if there is a high chance of an AP being filed, *you can't unbundle*!!
I think Jury's tips are excellent and I'll highlight some here, #5 is
startling:
1. The decision to unbundle must be driven by the debtors needs, not the
attorneys.
2. The attorney may not rely solely on the debtors input to help him or
her ascertain the debtors goal.
3. The debtor must understand the legal jargon and the *practical *effect
on him or her of the limited scope representation before the consent is
informed.
4. Attorney must take an active role in customizing retainer for each
client.
5. After describing to the debtor the risks of limited scope
representation, the attorney must give the debtor the opportunity to elsewhere for an attorney who will provide full representation before
entering into the contractual relationship with the debtor for the limited
scope.
6. The attorney should document as fully as possible all the steps taken to
comply with these requirements.
This was my take on the case when I first read it (posted originally to fb):
The 9th Circuit BAP threw the book at this attorney. All attorneys who help
clients with BK should be aware of this decision.
If you don't realize that an AP will be filed against your client, under
some circumstances, it's a violation of your duty of competence to file for
bankruptcy for them and limit your scope to not defending the AP.
If you file a bankruptcy for someone, knowing that they will need to be
defended in an adversary proceeding, you can't limit your scope of
representation without informed consent of the client!
If you say you will charge extra for defending a subsequently filed AP,
then you can't subsequently deny the request to represent the client.
If you don't tell your clients that there may be an AP filed against them,
that's a failure of the duty to communicate!
In a Chapter 7, if you fail to do sufficient diligence to figure out if an
AP may be filed against your client, before filing the case, you may be in
violation of 707(b)(4)(C)!
Failure to explain the risks associated with filing for bankruptcy (like a
potential AP) is a violation of 526(a). [Of course, does not apply to most
Chapter 11 attorneys.]
Failure to explain "adversary proceeding" or "non dischargeability" in non
legalese is a violation of 528(a)(1).
Failure to sign the retainer letter by the attorney is a violation of
528(a)(1)!
Judge Jury's concurrence is great advice for attorneys.
Original BK court decision here:

The post was migrated from Yahoo.