9th Cir Case Rubin v. Pringle
Posted: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:06 pm
Whenever I receive an adversary proceeding, I send a letter to the client explaining that we do not represent him and advising that if he wants us to represent him he needs to contact us and enter a new agreement and arrange for fees. I give the client a date to respond by and if the client does not respond, or responds and says he does not want representation, I send a letter to the creditor informing it that I am not representing the debtor in this matter, include a copy of the Limited Scope, and request to be removed from the service list (client gets a cc of this letter also).
This is in addition to the original retainer that specifically says adversaries are not included, as well as the Limited Scope.
cdcbaaboard wrote:
There is a new case on the 9th Circuit list, Rubin V. Pringle.
It looks a little dangerous for bk counsel. The 9th Circuit ruled,
in limited circumstances of secreting assets, service on counsel is
effective, EVEN IF THE DEBTOR IS NEVER SERVED.
Make sure you list in your limited scope of appearance you are not
hired for adversary proceedings, or you may get stuck in a case with
bogus service.
The opposite cousel is also appropriate, if you say you are not the
cousel in adversary proceedings, it is questionable whether a
creditor has to serve you. I have had counsel refuse to serve me
when I have filed a limited scope form indicating I am not retained
for adversary proceedings. This should be trumped by rule 7004,
which requires service on the debtor and the debtor's counsel.
Again, the arguement is circular, who knows what the ruling would
be. We probably should add another caveat to our retainers,
something like, "If you don't pay me more to be your lawyer in
adversary proceedings, you lose the protection of having the court
require creditors to serve me...
ok, overreaching, .... what is the group's view?
see:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.