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"
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.
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. Unfortunately, it appears that lawyers are increasingly encountering discovery abuse in civil litigation, resulting in more and more judges imposing sanctions—including the ultimate sanction of default judgment in the nonoffending party’s favor—for such abuse.
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. Likewise, lawyers who represent consumer debtors may have dealings with unrepresented creditors regarding filing proof of claims or reaffirmation agreements or other bankruptcy matters.
Webster’s Dictionary defines “zeal” as “eagerness and ardent interest in pursuit of something.” Zeal has initiated much debate among legal professionals. What does it mean to be a zealous advocate? Is zealous advocacy even permissible in today’s practice of law?
The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that a debtor-in-possession (DIP) lender had breached its financing agreement, barring its claim for commitment and funding fees from the DIP. [1] Although the DIP itself had also breached the agreement, that breach was not, in the court’s view, effective until after the lender had already “walked away.” [2] Since the lender first breached the agreement, it could not now recover the fees from the DIP.
The Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas recently issued Opinion No. 603 regarding a lawyer’s duties when he or she represents an insolvent corporation. The opinion was based on a situation [1] in which the company’s sole shareholder was also its sole officer and sole director, engaging in conduct that the company lawyer concluded breached her fiduciary duties to the company.
Social media transformed the way people communicate and interact with one another. With close to 500 million active users, half of whom login daily and maintain an average of 130 friends, Facebook is the leader among social media platforms. [1] Nearly one-fifth of Facebook’s active user population is found in the United States, which equates to one-third of the country’s total population.
In a rare opinion addressing ethical and disclosure issues in the solicitation of official committees of unsecured creditors, the court in In re Universal Building Products [1]denied the applications of two proposed counsel for the committee in the case.
