In re Kimberly Nifong Mitchell, Case No. 11-08880-8-ATS (Bankr. E.D.N.C. Sept. 20, 2013), is a chapter 11 case involving the law firm of Oliver, Friesen, Cheek PLLC (OFC) and Bankruptcy Code §§ 503(b)(1)(A) and 507(a)(2). OFC was disqualified due to an undisclosed potential conflict of interest between two of its clients.
In In re Rowe,[1] the court considered the propriety of deviating from the percentage compensation set forth in Bankruptcy Code § 326(a) based on the chapter 7 trustee’s failure to perform as required. This case illustrates the effort needed to reconcile the tension between recognizing the trustee’s fee as a “commission” calculated by the formula set forth in § 326(a) and the court’s directive to award “reasonable” compensation to trustees and other professionals.
On March 15, 2011, the Supreme Court of Montana approved amendments to its Rules of Civil Procedure (MRCP), effective Oct.
Creditors and parties in interest frequently file objections to bankruptcy professionals’ fee requests incurred during the case. According to the U.S. Trustee’s Annual Report of Significant Accomplishments for FY 2009, [1] the U.S.
The Ninth Circuit recently upheld a motion for sanctions against an attorney and his law firm for improperly removing a case. This raises the question of whether there is a trend of courts developing less tolerance for aggressive litigation tactics or whether this was an isolated incident where the facts justified the application of sanctions at any period of time.
This edition of the Ethics and Professional Compensation Committee newsletter marks the first edition from the new leadership. Richard Carmody of Adams & Reese has done an amazing job as our newsletter editor, and we would be remiss not to thank him for his work. Thanks, Richard!
A ruling that an entity lacks standing in a bankruptcy case is usually a frustrating development that means that the party will not have the opportunity to be heard on a matter that may have negative consequences for it. In Savage Associates PC v.
Bankruptcy lawyers often deal with unrepresented persons. For example, in more than 10 percent of consumer cases, the debtor has no lawyer. [1] Counsel for an unrepresented debtor’s secured creditors may have dealings with the debtor regarding motions for relief from stay or reaffirmation agreements.
Many cases are won or lost on discovery. Ironically, this key aspect of litigation is typically subject to minimal judicial control, and lawyers are instead often left to comport themselves in the discovery process with civility, honor and integrity.
