Bankruptcy Judge Eileen Howell, in In re Barron, 2010 WL 5168889 (Bankr. D. Ariz, December 14, 2010) recently entered a decision on a reaffirmation agreement issue. The decision is very important on the jurisdictional issue for the Court (i.e. must the Court hold a hearing if the Debtor is represented by counsel but counsel fails to sign off on the reaffirmation agreement? – the answer is “no jurisdiction”). However, as the Debtor did everything required of them, the Court found that 521(d) is inapplicable.
My focus is on the Court’s statement that “[c]ounsel simply cannot unilaterally withdraw from the reaffirmation process and abandon the client even if counsel and their clients disagree"). In the Barron case, the Debtor’s counsel did not formally withdraw but instead chose not to represent the debtor. This type of action by Debtor’s counsel is prevalent throughout the Country.
All Debtors’ counsel should be fully aware that their action or lack of action could be costly to not only their client but their own pocketbook. The Nevada Courts have the local rules, case law as well as our ethical rules to support the same conclusion that your the attorney until you obtain an order withdrawing from the case.
your starting to sound like a BK Judge!
ReplyDeletehi very nice blog and very nice information and so cool products.All Debtors’ counsel should be fully aware that their action or lack of action could be costly to not only their client but their own pocketbook.
ReplyDelete