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"
A California bankruptcy court has held that the right to seek attorneys’ fees for violations of the Civil Rights Act applies to fees incurred protecting a civil rights judgment in a bankruptcy proceeding. In the case of In re Harris,[1] the bankruptcy court granted the creditor’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in the bankruptcy case because such fees and costs were for work performed while protecting and enforcing the creditor’s pre-petition civil rights judgment.
Recently, in Rivers v. Aufrecht (In re Galloway),[1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit spared an attorney from sanctions and disgorgement directives, reversing the bankruptcy court after consideration of the totality of the facts in the case.
The McDermott International bankruptcy plan had already been confirmed by the time the hearing was held on the retention applications described herein.[1] The Honorable David R.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Alabama recently issued a reminder for all attorneys trying to ensure payment for their work.[1] The warning? Exercise a little common sense, practice a little professional courtesy, and don’t jump right into litigation.
Section 523(a)(7) excepts from bankruptcy discharge a debt “to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.”[1] The law is clear that restitution payments constitute debts excepted from discharge under Section 523(a)(7).[2] Indeed, the Supreme Court has held that a restitution obligation imposed in a criminal proceeding is not subject to discharge in a chapter 7 proceeding.
COVID-19 has catapulted us into a world in which virtually all legal services are conducted online. Ethics rules require lawyers to maintain competence, and many states require lawyers to stay abreast of relevant technology. Rules of ethics and professional conduct generally do not impose greater or different duties upon practitioners operating online than those attorneys practicing in a traditional office environment, but the rules may have different implications in a virtual environment.
Courts rarely grant motions for reconsideration, but the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware did just that in the context of fee-shifting sanctions in In re NNN 400 Capital Center 16, LLC.[1] While the court ultimately upheld the sanctions, it provided a thorough analysis of a court’s ability to shift fees.
