charset="ISO-8859-1"
Thanks, Patrick. The dual representation feels wrong to me, but I think you
have the right analysis, and I cant find a way to actually challenge it.
Boyfriends attorney will get information about a transaction thats not
directly relevant to the 523 action; I just have to be vigilant about using
the FRE to make sure its not introduced into the 523 action.
- John D. Faucher
On 11/12/10 3:00 PM, "Patrick Green" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> John:
>
> What would be the basis of challenge? The conflict has to be between their
> clients, not just a problem for your client that they represent two parties
> that are adverse to your clients. Are the trustee and boyfriend in conflict?
> I dont see how. One wants to get property into the estate and the other
> wants a debt to be non-dischargable.
>
>
> If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
>
> Pat
>
> Patrick T. Green, Esq.
> Fitzgerald & Green
> Attorneys at Law
> 1010 E. Union Street
> Suite 206
> Pasadena, CA 91106
> Tel: 626-449-8433
> Fax: 626-449-0565
>
pat@fitzgreenlaw.com
>
>
>
John
> Faucher
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 2010 2:33 PM
> To:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Conflict of interest?
>
>
>
> Hello Listmates:
> I represent a debtor being sued by a jilted ex-boyfriend for money she
> allegedly embezzled while shacking up with him. Law Firm A has filed a
> non-dischargeability complaint relating to this matter.
> The chapter 7 trustee has now found a potential fraudulent transfer from
> the debtor to her daughter: debtor gave the daughter a piece of real property
> in return for future support, then filed bk, and didnt disclose the
> transaction. Trustee is hiring Law Firm A to set aside the fraudulent
> transfer, but has not filed an employment application.
> I have answered the non-dischargeability complaint, and I have written a
> letter to Law Firm A explaining the alleged fraudulent transfer (after getting
> both mother and daughter to sign a retainer waiving potential conflicts of
> interest). Law Firm A responded by asking for more detailed information
> regarding the transfer. Mother and daughter are now balking at providing that
> information because they dont want the ex-boyfriends attorney to have it as
> ammunition in the dischargeability suit.
> Can I now challenge Law Firm As representation of the chapter 7 trustee,
> and refuse to provide documentation to it? Have I waived this challenge by
> writing to Law Firm A regarding the transfer? We have no problem providing
> this information to the trustee directly.
>>>>
>>>> John D. Faucher
>>>> Hurlbett & Faucher
>>>> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
>>>> Westlake Village, CA 91362
>>>> (818) 889-8080
>>>> Fax: (805) 367-4154
>>>>
http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>>>>
>>>> 3324 State Street, Suite O
>>>> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
>>>> (805) 963-9111
>
> This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain
> information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom
> it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 805/963-9111 x103 or
>
john@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this message and then delete
> the message without delay. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
> Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
> advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
> purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or
> recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>>> - John D. Faucher
charset="ISO-8859-1"
Re: [cdcbaa] Conflict of interest?
Thanks, Patrick. The dual representation feels wrong to me, but I think you have the right anal
The post was migrated from Yahoo.