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.
Many cases have dealt with bankruptcy petitions filed in “bad faith.” Typically, a party in interest seeks to simply have the petition dismissed, and seeks no further relief. Infrequently, however, a party may make the difficult decision to seek the imposition of sanctions against a bad faith filer and his or her counsel to deter future abuse of the Bankruptcy Code.
For the past several months, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Ethics 20/20 (ABA) has been soliciting commentary on various ethics issues involving lawyers’ use of the Internet as an information-gathering device. [1] The Internet, dubbed the “information superhighway” in the early 1990s, is commonly used by attorneys to gather
Whether it is discovery, pleadings or transactions, lawyers produce enough pages to fill countless file cabinets. As a means of alleviating the cost associated with additional physical storage space, attorneys have turned to digital storage solutions for client files, including confidential information.
On November 18, 2010, Judge Gerber of the Southern District of New York Bankruptcy Court issued a decision on payment of non-fiduciary professional fees in In re Adelphia Communications Corp. [1] The Court allowed a number of distressed investors to be reimbursed for legal fees and other expenditures spent in competing for large
The Federal District Court of New Jersey recently examined the reasonableness of professional fees to a prevailing party arising from lengthy litigation involving clean-up cost allocations of a New Jersey Superfund site. In reducing the prevailing party’s fee application, the Court, in United States v.
The following question was recently posed to the South Carolina Ethics Advisory Committee (the “Committee”): As part of a confidential settlement agreement that does not require court approval, can the settling defendant require the plaintiff’s lawyer to not identify or use the defendant’s name for “commercial or commercially-related publicity purposes,” even if the matter is of public record a
Upon a chapter 11 filing, that fictional entity, the debtor in possession (DIP), is born.
When a client is willing and able to pay a hefty retainer up front, it is difficult to question the source. To keep that retainer, one must investigate any fact that could cause a reasonable person to question the client’s right to use the funds. Blindly accepting funds could lead to disgorgement, so inquire as to the source of the funds before accepting them in good faith.
