Now Updating
In re Carol Engen

Summarizing by Bradley Pearce

Baker v. Harrington (In re Hoover)

No. 15-2384 (1st Cir.)
The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's sanction against the Debtor's attorney for twice describing applicable law in a misleading way. The appeals court found that the Bankruptcy Court had not abused its discretion in awarding the sanction given that the Debtor's attorney was overzealous and the briefs appeared to be intended to mislead the bankruptcy court.
Procedural context:
Appeal of the district court's decision to affirm sanctions against the Debtor's attorney.
During the bankruptcy case the Debtor sought sanctions against a secured creditor for rescheduling a foreclosure sale, arguing that rescheduling the foreclosure sale violated the automatic stay. The Debtor's attorney also argued that the Debtor was not improperly using cash collateral because the lien at issue was a non consensual tax lien. In support of these positions the Debtor's attorney cited authority. The Bankruptcy Court determined that the authority did not support the Debtor's arguments and the attorney's arguments had been misleading. The Bankruptcy Court sanctioned the Debtor's attorney by requiring him to attend an ethics course at an ABA accredited law school.
Lynch, Kayatta, and Barron

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary. Please Sign In using your ABI Member credentials. Not a Member yet? Join ABI now - it is absolutely worth it!

About us in numbers

3101 in the system

2987 Summarized

2 Being Processed