SCHWAB v. REILLY – JUST A LITTLE REMINDER The Supreme Court's latest bankruptcy opinion once again touches on ethical responsibilities, this time with respect to filings in connection with exemptions and valuation. Read the full opinion in Schwab v. Reilly here.
LANNING & ETHICS: CONCERNS FOR COUNSEL FOR DEBTORS: The Supreme Court decided Hamilton v. Lanning on Monday, June 7, 2010, and again raised significant ethical questions for debtor's counsel.
Espinosa: Through an Ethics Prism This article examines some ethics issues present among the multiple issues addressed in the Supreme Court's recent Espinosa decision. (Read the full text of the Espinosa opinion here.
MILAVETZ & BAPCPA: Some Troublesome Text Is Touched Up, Not Terminated The latest from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's opinion in Milavetz, decided Monday, Mar. 8, 2010 is available at this link from the Court as a PDF file.
Bankruptcy Ethics: Attorneys, Deceptive Documents And Bankruptcy — A Series Of Articles: What sources and standards are available to bankruptcy courts in such circumstances? This second article in the series reviews the sources and standards used by courts in connection with determining issues involving the presentation of deceptive documents in bankruptcy cases and proceedings.
Ethics: Attorneys, Deceptive Documents And Bankruptcy – A Series Of Articles This is the initial Article in a series which will explore the distributing frequency with which deceptive documents are being filed in bankruptcy courts, including the significant consequences, often involving subsequent state disciplinary proceedings, for attorneys involved with such filings.
Ethics And Unbundling: Attorneys Agree With Clients About Unbundling Bankruptcy Services; But, Do Courts Agree With Attorneys About Unbundling Bankruptcy Services?: Part 3 – Bankruptcy Court Decisions In the concluding article in this series, the author examines various bankruptcy court decisions, all of which suggest caution in connection with attempting to unbundle bankruptcy services.
Professional Responsibility Cannot Be Subordinated To Process Efficiency Taylor – A "Must Read" Decision: Another court, with striking detail, holds mortgage business demands in chapter 13 cases cannot trump creditor counsels' professional responsibility demands.
Ethics And Unbundling: Attorneys Agree With Clients About Unbundling Bankruptcy Services; But, Do Courts Agree With Attorneys About Unbundling Bankruptcy Services? PART 2 – STATE RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND APPLICABLE BANKRUPTCY LAW: This article examines the approach bankruptcy courts often take in their examinations of state law governing the unbundling of legal services within the context of representation in a bankruptcy case.
Ethics And Unbundling: Attorneys Agree With Clients About Unbundling Bankruptcy Services; But, Do Courts Agree With Attorneys About Unbundling Bankruptcy Services? This is the first in a series of articles examining the complicated issues presented by the attempted unbundling of legal services in bankruptcy proceedings.
Planning for Attorney Disability or Death Judge Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren (N.D. Ohio) offers compelling thoughts on the seldom considered ethical, best practice and personal implications of the disability or death of an attorney with a chapter 13 practice. This is an article well worth reading and, more importantly, following with appropriate action.
I Was Just Following Orders: Both on the world stage and in local courtrooms, the words “I was just following orders” have a hollow ring and fail to provide an acceptable defense for unacceptable actions or, quite frequently, failures to act.
How Did This Happen To Me?: How did this ethics problem happen to me? It should come as no surprise that this simple column will not provide a once-and-for-all answer to that question; however, this column will identify one example which could be helpful in limiting, if not avoiding, the presence of that question in a legal career.
The Controlling Ethics Model: The controlling model must be the “Ethics Model,” i.e. the state and federal law which govern every attorney’s and law firm’s ethical obligations in the practice of law.