Skip to main content

July 7 - Members and Subscribers - Welcome to the new and improved abi.org! - If you have not already done so, please reset your ABI password to access the site. Click "Login" and then "Forgot Password"

ABI Journal

Ethics and Professional Compensation

Don't Tug on Superman's Cape

What should you do when opposing counsel is acting like a jerk? Unless the conduct or action is egregious, in bad faith, and demonstrably harmful to your client, you generally should do nothing. Grow thicker skin. This is because most conduct endured by courts and litigants is not covered by a specific sanctions statute or rule,[1] and most judges dislike sanctions motions as much if not more than discovery motions.

Counsel Beware; Chapter 11 Filing Solely to Avoid Receiver is Sanctionable

Rule 9011(b) provides that by presenting to the court a petition, pleading, written motion or other paper, an attorney is certifying that, to the best of the person’s knowledge, information and belief, it is not presented “for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”[1] In In re EHC, LLC[2] the court found debtor’s counsel violated Rule 9011 when he filed chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions solely to avoid the appointment of

Bankruptcy Court Upholds Involuntary Chapter 7 Case Finding Assignee for an Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors Failed to Comply with his Fiduciary Duties

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New York (the “Bankruptcy Court”) recently ruled In re Scandia Seafood (New York), Inc.[1] that an involuntary chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed against Scandia Seafood (New York), Inc.

The Seventh Circuit Rules Law Firm Did Not Owe Duty to Third Party Non-clients Regarding 1.5 Billion Dollar Mistake in Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System et.al. v. Mayer Brown, LLP

If you were looking for something else to worry about at night, ponder the following scenario that forms the basis for the putative class-action complaint brought by the lender group-plaintiffs (the “Plaintiffs”) that was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and affirmed on appeal in Oakland Police & Fire Retirement System et.al. v. Mayer Brown. [1]