Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

This is why you can do a simple 2090-1 and say that is what you did and
didn't charge or charge for one hour. Pain I know but all you need is
to have your name come up at a 341a.
CS
Charles Shamash, Esq.
Caceres & Shamash, LLP
8383 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1010
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2409
Phone: (323) 852-1600 X 101
Facsimile: (323) 852-9009
Sent: Monday, August 02, 2004 5:18 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] In re Castorena
> I wonder if the lunatic judge who made this decision also believes
that the client has a mandatory duty to PAY the lawyer and that if the
client DOES NOT PAY the lawyer the lawyer has not become the attorney of
record. I thought the civil war resolved the issue of being forced to
work for no pay. Gautschi
> Date: 2004/08/02 Mon PM 08:46:16 EDT
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] In re Castorena
>
> Hi everyone, Ty asked me a question about rule 9011 which made me go
> to Westlaw for research.
>
> Everyone might find this case interesting.
> In re Castorena
> 270 B.R. 504
> Bkrtcy.D.Idaho,2001.
>
> It holds any attorney who counsels a debtor, and helps the debtor
> fill out schedules, has a mandatory duty to sign the petition,
> appear at the 341a, etc. pre rule 9011. 9011 doesn't say that, it
> says "(S)hall be signed by at least one attorney of record..." The
> case holds, essentially, preparation of documents makes you the
> attorney of record.
>
> This is not a California case, but is troubling, why, sometimes when
> a person comes in who is just unable to pay for an attorney, I get
> soft and do the paperwork for free. Castorena says this is a 9011
> violation. You cannot just prepare paperwork, you must sign the
> paperwork and appear. I guess I cannot be nice anymore.
>
> I hope this case is NOT followed here, but beware.
>
> dennis
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
Yahoo! Groups Links

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hi, Dennis
What about F-2090-1 Limited Scope of Appearance?
Joseph
Hi, Dennis

What about F-2090-1 Limited Scope of Appearance?

Joseph

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

It seems this and other issues facing the consumer bankruptcy bar may
be the subject of a committee to intervene in an amicus manner when
any of our fellow consumer bankruptcy attorneys finds themselves
boxed in by the client and ethics, on the one hand, and the trustees
and the court, on the other hand. It has become apparent recently
that our adversaries are the clients and state bar, the trustees, and
even some of the judges who are not very sympathetic either.
Any thoughts? Lou Esbin
> Well, this is disturbing. File it under no good deed shall go
unpunished.
>
> Thanks,
>
> David Candaux

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Well, this is disturbing. File it under no good deed shall go unpunished.
Thanks,
David Candaux
Well, this is disturbing. File it under no good deed shall go unpunished.

Thanks,

David Candaux

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

> I wonder if the lunatic judge who made this decision also believes that the client has a mandatory duty to PAY the lawyer and that if the client DOES NOT PAY the lawyer the lawyer has not become the attorney of record. I thought the civil war resolved the issue of being forced to work for no pay. Gautschi
> Date: 2004/08/02 Mon PM 08:46:16 EDT
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [cdcbaa] In re Castorena
>
> Hi everyone, Ty asked me a question about rule 9011 which made me go
> to Westlaw for research.
>
> Everyone might find this case interesting.
> In re Castorena
> 270 B.R. 504
> Bkrtcy.D.Idaho,2001.
>
> It holds any attorney who counsels a debtor, and helps the debtor
> fill out schedules, has a mandatory duty to sign the petition,
> appear at the 341a, etc. pre rule 9011. 9011 doesn't say that, it
> says "(S)hall be signed by at least one attorney of record..." The
> case holds, essentially, preparation of documents makes you the
> attorney of record.
>
> This is not a California case, but is troubling, why, sometimes when
> a person comes in who is just unable to pay for an attorney, I get
> soft and do the paperwork for free. Castorena says this is a 9011
> violation. You cannot just prepare paperwork, you must sign the
> paperwork and appear. I guess I cannot be nice anymore.
>
> I hope this case is NOT followed here, but beware.
>
> dennis
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

The post was migrated from Yahoo.

Hi everyone, Ty asked me a question about rule 9011 which made me go
to Westlaw for research.
Everyone might find this case interesting.
In re Castorena
270 B.R. 504
Bkrtcy.D.Idaho,2001.
It holds any attorney who counsels a debtor, and helps the debtor
fill out schedules, has a mandatory duty to sign the petition,
appear at the 341a, etc. pre rule 9011. 9011 doesn't say that, it
says "(S)hall be signed by at least one attorney of record..." The
case holds, essentially, preparation of documents makes you the
attorney of record.
This is not a California case, but is troubling, why, sometimes when
a person comes in who is just unable to pay for an attorney, I get
soft and do the paperwork for free. Castorena says this is a 9011
violation. You cannot just prepare paperwork, you must sign the
paperwork and appear. I guess I cannot be nice anymore.
I hope this case is NOT followed here, but beware.
dennis

The post was migrated from Yahoo.