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"
In July 2010, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico declined to dismiss a cause of action by a chapter 7 trustee against a lawyer who had submitted an offer from a third party to purchase estate property, leaving for trial whether the lawyer may be held personally liable on the contract. The opinion in Gonzales v.
American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 7.3 prohibits a lawyer from soliciting professional employment in person, by live telephone or real-time electronic contact where pecuniary gain is a significant motive and the prospective client is not a lawyer and does not have a family, close personal or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.[1] Under the rule, where pecuniary gain is the motive and no relationship exists, Rule 7.3’s prohibition is an absolute, categorical ban based on method of contact, but what are these forbidd
In today’s economic climate, it is not uncommon for law firms to encounter trouble collecting outstanding legal fees. Although not preferred, law firms may ultimately have no choice but to commence collection actions against former clients. It is uncommon, however, for law firms to commence involuntary bankruptcies against former clients to recover unpaid fees.
It is hard to open a law periodical these days without hearing about the shift from hourly billing to alternative fee arrangements such as flat fees. It may be premature to mourn the demise of the billable hour, but it is nevertheless imperative for lawyers to become familiar with the ethical pitfalls inherent in alternative billing arrangements.
In a recent decision in the chapter 11 case of ProjectOrange Associates LLC,[2] the court confronted an important issue that often arises in bankruptcy cases: whether the use of conflicts counsel is sufficient to permit court approval under § 327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code of a debtor’s choice for general bankruptcy counsel that also represents an important creditor of the debtor in unrelated matters. Here, the conflict involved the debtor's largest unsecured creditor and an essential supplier.
Recent Second and Ninth Circuit opinions highlight the dispute over whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes allowance of claims for post-petition legal fees incurred by unsecured creditors. Specifically, while not all circuits agree, in the wake of the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of North America v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co., 549 U.S.
You have been hired to represent a secured lender in a bankruptcy case. Thankfully, the lender took a lien on collateral with a value greatly exceeding the amount of the debt, and the loan documents provide coverage for legal fees and expenses. It looks as though this gives you plenty of room to participate in this case and have your fees and expenses reimbursed out of the proceeds of the collateral.
In a nondischargeability action under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(2)(A) against an attorney by his client, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that attorney Harold Riebesell could not discharge a loan made to him by his client in his chapter 7 case where he failed to disclose his perilous financial condition to his client. Johnson v. Riebesell (In re Riebesell), 586 F.3d 782, (C.A.10 2009). In In re Riebesell, Riebesell, a Colorado attorney, had a continuing attorney-client relationship with client W.A.
Cases—like seasons—come and go. What remains is the indelible mark left by the professional footprint of counsel. Long after the mediation is concluded, the plan confirmed, the jury discharged, the defendant sentenced, the loan closed, the adoption granted and file retired, there will remain both intended and unintended impressions and appreciations of the parties and their counsel.
