Ethical Issues in Bankruptcy Cases – Part II

By Paul W. Bonapfel, United States Bankruptcy Judge, Northern District of Georgia1

Conflicts of Interest**

Because of the duty of loyalty that a lawyer owes the client, a lawyer is not permitted to represent a client if representation of the client conflicts with the lawyer’s own interests, the interests of other clients, or the lawyer’s responsibilities to third parties, unless the affected client’s . . .

It looks like you are not signed in or registered! This content is only available to members.

Or Sign In Below:

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

Academy Circle Logo Final
September 3, 2023
Tracy Updike of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, has been named as a Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the Northern District of Indiana.  Updike will be filling the trusteeship vacated by Debra Miller when she accepted a trusteeship in the Eastern District of Tennessee.
April 14, 2019
By John Andreasen and Patrick Lombardi, Law Students at the University of Illinois College of Law and Duberstein Moot Court Team Members Both consumers and businesses often depend on motor vehicles for their livelihood or, for consumers, access to health care, child care, or other essential services. A creditor’s repossession of a motor vehicle can turn into an existential crisis...
Members
May 5, 2019
The CFPB (Bureau), May 2, 2019, issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), which proposes to raise the coverage thresholds for collecting and reporting data about closed-end mortgage loans and open-end lines of credit under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) rules. The NPRM would provide relief to smaller lenders from HMDA’s data reporting requirements, and would clarify partial exemptions...
September 15, 2019
By Jan Hamilton, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Topeka, KS) “I do not suggest my thoughts here are anywhere close to exhaustive. . . . Of course, my thoughts may be off mark on one or more items, but the discussions need to start somewhere, so here we go…” See also: 2019 Legislation Affecting Bankruptcy Practice – Overview
Members
moran_cathy
October 30, 2022
Spending every dollar they make, and then some, is often how our Chapter 13 clients got into financial trouble. Yet Chapter 13, as practiced, validates the practice of continuing to spend 100% of each month’s income during the life of the plan. In doing so, we, as a society, squander the chance to use Chapter 13 to teach new budgeting...
Members
June 21, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Portion of divorce award was priority domestic support claim and portion dischargeable unsecured claim. Applying Third Circuit’s factors from In re Gianakas, 917 F.2d 759 (3d Cir. 1990), and considering special master’s intent in divorce proceedings, one-third of former spouse’s claim was priority domestic support but two- thirds was reclassified as general unsecured...
Members
moran_cathy
January 23, 2022
The no man's land between the mortgage due date and late payment is a persistent trouble spot for Chapter 13 practitioners. Are there arrears when the case is filed during the grace period and the payment made before it was late? In Borre, Judge Ronald Sargis of ED CA said no. He held that the payment was not in default...
Members
October 20, 2019
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Objection sustained to one-year late proof of claim. The mortgage creditor did not object to confirmation nor file a proof of claim until one year after the bar date in the Chapter 13 case. The trustee objected to the claim, which asserted a higher arrearage than provided for in the confirmed plan. Section...
Members
August 1, 2021
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) While the debtors failed to meet the high threshold to establish excusable neglect to permit their claim filed on behalf of a creditor after the bar date to be allowed, where a Chapter 13 case is dismissed and then reinstated prior to the expiration of the bar date, the...
Members
March 14, 2021
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Failure to pay postpetition fees under Rule 3002.1 did not prevent discharge. The debtor had completed payments to the trustee and postpetition mortgage payments to the creditor, but she had not paid $1,370 in postpetition fees that had been asserted by the mortgage creditor and noticed to the debtor under Rule 3002.1. That...
Members