Exaggerated Allegations Lead to Sanctions in Stay Violation Case

Many consumer debtor attorneys have chosen to enhance their revenue by filing suit on relatively minor violations of the automatic stay or discharge. There is nothing inherently wrong with these suits since they vindicate the rights that debtors receive when they file bankruptcy. However, some practitioners have resorted to filing form complaints which go on for hundreds of paragraphs with boilerplate allegations about the callousness of the particular creditor. Recently, a creditors' lawyer fought back against exaggerated allegations in a complaint against his client and succeeded in recovering sanctions under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9011. Defeo v. Winyah Surgical Specialists, P.A. (In re Defeo). 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2685 (Bankr. D. S.C. 9/27/21).  

Sanctions in the Michigan Election Case and in Bankruptcy Court (Pt. 2)

Yesterday I introduced King v. Whitmer (E.D. Mich. 8/25/21), the case in which Judge Linda Parker wrote a 110-page opinion awarding sanctions under three separate legal grounds. Today we look at sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, the longest section of the opinion, as well as a case where sanctions were assessed under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9011, its bankruptcy counterpart.

Introduction to Rule 11

Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b) and (c) and its bankruptcy counterpart, Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9011(b) and (c) each state that:

Texas Lawyer Escapes Sanction

In politics, it is sometimes said, what did the president know and when did he know it. As it turns out this analysis is helpful in determining whether a lawyer should face sanctions under Rule 9011 as well. In the case of In re Dernick, No. 18-32417 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 5/22/20), the fact that "there [we]re a fair number of complex and confusing details at play" was enough to prevent the motion in question from being objectively frivolous.

What Happened

Two individuals filed Chapter 11 and hired  lawyer AA (not his real initials).  AA filed a Motion to Disqualify law firm FG from representing one of their creditors, Dernick Encore, LLC. The motion alleged that FG had previously represented the Debtors in substantially related matters and were in possession of relevant confidential information.

Dernick Encore responded and said that FG had not represented the Debtors and that the prior representations were not substantially related to FG's current representation of Dernick Encore. 

After a two day evidentiary hearing, the Court denied the Motion and allowed Dernick Encore to file an application for fees and costs. Dernick Encore sought to recover fees of $101,704.00. The Debtors objected that the Court lacked sufficient authority for fee shifting. The Court then issued a Show Cause Order for the Debtors and lawyer AA to show cause why they had not violated Rule 9011(b).

Subsequently, the Debtors retained new counsel and lawyer AA withdrew. 

The Court conducted a hearing on the Order to Show Cause over the course of three days. 

While the Show Cause Order was under advisement, the Debtors, Dernick Encore and several other parties went to mediation and reached a settlement. Following approval of a motion to compromise, the Debtors were released from the Show Cause Order. That left the issue of whether lawyer AA was subject to sanctions.

The Court's Ruling

The Court concluded that because Derrick Encore had not filed a Motion for Sanctions, that the Court could not order lawyer AA to pay Derrick Encore's attorneys' fees. However, the Court still had power to award sanctions under Rule 9011 and its inherent authority. If this is confusing, it is because it is. Rule 9011 authorizes sanctions in two contexts. First, there are party initiated sanctions which require a safe harbor notice. Second, there are Court initiated sanctions which are triggered by an order to show cause which must describe the specific conduct which the respondent is alleged to have committed. Apparently the relief which can be granted with regard to Court-initiated sanctions are different than when sanctions are party-initiated.

This brought the Court to the merits of whether lawyer AA had violated Rule 9011(b). The Court stated that a pleading could violate Rule 9011 if it met one of the four subsections of Rule 9011(b), which the Court described as the frivolousness clause or objective component and the improper purpose or subjective component.

 In order to avoid violation of the frivolousness clauses, the lawyer must (i) perform a reasonable preliminary investigation and (ii) conclude that the legal papers filed are grounded in "both a nonfrivolous legal theory and well-founded factual contentions and/or denials that, at a minimum, have a reasonable possibility of having evidentiary support after further investigation and discovery."  The court's inquiry "should focus on the merits of the motion gleaned from the facts and law known or available to the attorney at the time of filing."  Opinion, p. 11.

Failure to conduct a reasonable investigation will not protect the attorney even if he had a good faith belief that the motion was sound. Reasonableness depends on "the time available for investigation, whether Mr. [AA] had to rely on Debtors for information as to the underlying facts, whether the Motion was based on a plausible view of the law, and may depend on the extent to which factual development necessitates discovery."  Opinion, p.. 12.

In order to disqualify an attorney there must be (i) a prior representation and (ii) a substantial relationship between the prior representation of the Debtors and the current representation of Dernick Encore.

FG had represented the Debtors previously in connection with their status as minority shareholders of a company called Cinco Resources, Inc. However, FG's engagement letter stated that it was limited to filing answers for the minority shareholders and would be completed once the answers were filed. It also stated that continued work would be contingent on timely payment of their invoices (which did not happen). To further complicate things, another one of the minority shareholders asked FG to perform various tasks related to other companies and to bill the matter to the Cinco Resources Minority Shareholder matter.  Dernick Encore paid the bill for the other services rendered.

Attorney AA concluded that FG had continued to represent the minority shareholders (including the Debtors) through 2015. The Court stated:

The Court finds credible Mr. [AA]’s testimony that his review of the record before him raised reasonable concerns about [FG]’s scope of representations with respect to Debtors. While the Court carefully combed through the trial record and found certain points where Mr. [AA] could have been more investigative in his inquiry before filing his Motion, the Court’s job is not to direct counsel on how to prosecute their motions. Rather, the Court is guided by Rule 11 and Rule 9011, which cautions that sanctions run the risk of chilling zealous and creative advocacy, as well as potentially meritorious claims that circumstances make difficult to prove. In reviewing the record, the Court notes that there are a fair number of complex and confusing details at play, especially regarding Debtors’ numerous businesses, Debtors’ dealings with CRI and DRI, and Debtors’ dealings with various law firms, either individually or through their companies. Taking the record in toto, the Court is not convinced that Mr. [AA]'s Motion was objectively frivolous. The interrelatedness of Debtors’ companies and the timing of representations would certainly give any competent attorney pause, and the Court does not find that Mr. [AA]'s Motion approached frivolous levels under Rule 9011(b).

Opinion, pp. 16-17. The Court also found that the motion was not filed for an improper purpose. The Court reasoned that if the motion was objectively nonfrivolous, it could not have been filed for a subjectively improper purpose. This raises the question of whether the improper purpose test adds anything to the rule beyond the objective test. 

Thus, Judge Rodriguez declined to impose sanctions under his Show Cause Order.

What Does It Mean?

I see at least three takeaways from this case.

The first is that if a party wants to recover its attorneys fees, it should send a safe harbor letter (which must include a copy of the proposed motion). Had Dernick Encore sent a safe harbor letter, the Debtors might have reconsidered going ahead with their disqualification motion. Instead, the company incurred over $100,000 in legal fees which it was unable to recover.

The second is that the initial investigation is crucial. Here, lawyer AA reviewed enough documents to constitute a reasonable inquiry. Had he merely relied on his clients' word, he might likely have lost. While bankruptcies move quickly, asking the client for documentation (and then actually reviewing that documentation) is good defense for the lawyer, particularly when the motion is likely to be contentious. 

Finally, it takes a thoughtful judge to deny relief on his own order to show cause.

Hat tip to Matt Garcia for sending me the opinion.

Note: I did not use the name or initials of the lawyer in question. Publicizing an order granting sanctions can be a further punishment to the lawyer. However, where sanctions were denied, there is no good reason in publicizing the name of someone who was not sanctioned.

 

Third Circuit Upholds Professional Responsibility in Age of Technology

Print Page

A landmark case involving ethics and technology has reached its conclusion with an opinion from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that an attorney cannot blindly rely on information provided by an automated system, especially when the accuracy of that information has been called into question. In re Taylor, 655 F.3d 274 (3^rd Cir. 2011). I have previously written about the bankruptcy court decision here and the district court opinion here. The Court of Appeals set the tone for the opinion with its opening statement:

This case is an unfortunate example of the ways in which overreliance on computerized processes in a high-volume practice, as well as a failure on the part of clients and lawyers alike to take responsibility for accurate knowledge of a case, can lead to attorney misconduct before a court.

In re Taylor, at 277.

What Happened

The Taylor case illustrates the problems that can arise when a consumer debtor finds himself in a battle with a faceless computer. The Taylors and HSBC had a dispute over whether flood insurance was required on the Taylors’ property. As a result, the Taylors sent in their payments minus the disputed amount. HSBC placed the partial payments into suspense until a full payment was received an imposed late fees on the payment.

When the Taylors filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy, HSBC sent a referral to the Udren Law Firm to file a motion for relief from automatic stay. The referral was processed through the NewTrak technology system. The Court of Appeals described the process as follows:

HSBC does not deign to communicate directly with the firms it employs in its high-volume foreclosure work; rather, it uses a computerized system called NewTrak (provided by a third party, LPS) to assign individual firms discrete assignments and provide the limited data the system deems relevant to each assignment. The firms are selected and the instructions generated without any direct human involvement. The firms so chosen generally do not have the capacity to check the data (such as the amount of mortgage payment or time in arrears) provided to them by NewTrak and are not expected to communicate with other firms that may have done related work on the matter. Although it is technically possible for a firm hired through NewTrak to contact HSBC to discuss the matter on which it has been retained, it is clear from the record that this was discouraged and that some attorneys, including at least one Udren Firm attorney, did not believe it to be permitted.

In re Taylor, at 278-79.

A non-lawyer employee with the Udren Firm used the information provided by NewTrak to prepare the motion for relief from automatic stay. A managing attorney at the Udren Firm reviewed the motion and authorized it to be filed under her electronic signature. The motion recited that the Debtors had not made payments for three post-petition months but added that there was a suspense balance of $1,040. The motion asserted that there was a total arrearage balance of $4,367. The motion listed a different payment amount than the amount listed in the proof of claim filed by a different firm on behalf of HSBC. Finally, the motion asserted that the Debtors had no equity in their property.

The Debtors responded to the motion and attached copies of canceled checks payable to HSBC. The Debtors also objected to the proof of claim filed by HSBC. HSBC’s counsel responded to the claims objection asserting that all amounts in the proof of claim were accurate, even though they conflicted with the numbers contained in the motion for relief from stay.

The Court had this to say about the firm’s due diligence in filing the motion:

Doyle did nothing to verify the information in the motion for relief from stay besides check it against "screen prints" of the NewTrak information. She did not even access NewTrak herself. In effect, she simply proofread the document. It does not appear that NewTrak provided the Udren Firm with any information concerning the Taylors' equity in their home, so Doyle could not have verified her statement in the motion concerning the lack of equity in any way, even against a "screen print."

In re Taylor, at 279.

At the hearing, a young attorney from the Udren Firm acknowledged that the Debtors had made post-petition payments, but sought to proceed with the motion anyway because the Debtors had failed to respond to requests for admission.

The bankruptcy court denied the request to enter the RFAs as evidence, noting that the firm "closed their eyes to the fact that there was evidence that . . . conflicted with the very admissions that they asked me [to deem admitted]. They . . . had that evidence [that the assertions in its motion were not accurate] in [their] possession and [they] went ahead like [they] never saw it." (App. 108-109.) The court noted:

Maybe they have somebody there churning out these motions that doesn't talk to the people that--you know, you never see the records, do you? Somebody sends it to you that sent it from somebody else.

In re Taylor, at 281.

The Court directed the Udren Firm to obtain a payment history from HSBC so that the amounts owed could be determined. However, at a subsequent hearing, the young attorney informed the Court that he had submitted the request through NewTrak but had not received a reply. He also informed the Court that he was not allowed to communicate directly with his client. The understandably perturbed Court issued an order for the firm and three of its attorneys to appear and respond to the Court’s concerns about how the case had been handled.

After four hearings, the Court concluded that the young associate, the managing attorney who signed the pleadings, the head of the firm, the firm itself and HSBC had all violated Rule 9011. The Court imposed creative, but largely symbolic sanctions. As explained by the Court of Appeals:

Because of his inexperience, the court did not sanction Fitzgibbon. However, it required Doyle to take 3 CLE credits in professional responsibility; Udren himself to be trained in the use of NewTrak and to spend a day observing his employees handling NewTrak; and both Doyle and Udren to conduct a training session for the firm's relevant lawyers in the requirements of Rule 9011 and procedures for escalating inquiries on NewTrak. The court also required HSBC to send a copy of its opinion to all the law firms it uses in bankruptcy proceedings, along with a letter explaining that direct contact with HSBC concerning matters relating to HSBC's case was permissible.

In re Taylor at 281-82.

The sanctions were aimed more at shaming the firm than financially penalizing it. Ordering the head of the firm to learn how NewTrak worked sent a symbolic message that he was out of touch with how his own law firm worked. Requiring Doyle, the bankruptcy managing attorney, the obtain three hours of CLE in professional responsibility sent the message that she needed this education. Requiring Udren and Doyle to conduct a training session on the requirements of Rule 9011 and how NewTrak worked was intended to correct their behavior. Finally, the requirement that HSBC send a copy of the opinion to all of its attorneys was meant to remedy the perceived view that such contact was forbidden.

The District Court reversed all of the sanctions, even those against HSBC, which had not appealed. The District Court found that Debtor’s counsel was equally at fault, that the Bankruptcy Court seemed more interested in sending a message to the bar in general than addressing the failings of counsel in the specific case and that Udren could not be sanctioned under Rule 9011 because he had not signed any pleadings.

The U.S. Trustee appealed to the Third Circuit.

The Third Circuit Opinion

The Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s ruling that Udren, as shareholder of the firm, could not be sanctioned since he did not sign any pleadings. However, it reversed the remainder of the District Court ruling and reinstated the sanctions against Doyle, the Udren Firm and HSBC. In doing so, it provided a valuable guide to the requirements of Rule 9011 in the age of technology.

What’s a Reasonable Attorney to Do?

The Court of Appeals pointed out that merely making a false statement is not enough to invoke Rule 9011. The relevant inquiry is what the attorney could reasonably have believed.

The concern of Rule 9011 is not the truth or falsity of the representation in itself, but rather whether the party making the representation reasonably believed it at the time to have evidentiary support. In determining whether a party has violated Rule 9011, the court need not find that a party who makes a false representation to the court acted in bad faith. "The imposition of Rule 11 sanctions . . . requires only a showing of objectively unreasonable conduct."

In re Taylor, at 282.

The Court of Appeals identified four statements that were either false or misleading:

In this opinion, we focus on several statements by appellees: (1) in the motion for relief from stay, the statements suggesting that the Taylors had failed to make payments on their mortgage since the filing of their bankruptcy petition and the identification of the months in which and the amount by which they were supposedly delinquent; (2) in the motion for relief from stay, the statement that the Taylors had no or inconsequential equity in the property; (3) in the response to the claim objection, the statement that the figures in the proof of claim were accurate; and, (4) at the first hearing, the attempt to have the requests for admission concerning the lack of mortgage payments deemed admitted. As discussed above, all of these statements involved false or misleading representations to the court.

In re Taylor, at 283. It is not a good sign when an opinion identifies multiple cases of false or misleading statements to the court.

The Court of Appeals went on to find that the attorneys had not acted reasonably.

We must, therefore, determine the reasonableness of the appellees' inquiry before they made their false representations. Reasonableness has been defined as "an objective knowledge or belief at the time of the filing of a challenged paper that the claim was well-grounded in law and fact." (citation omitted). The requirement of reasonable inquiry protects not merely the court and adverse parties, but also the client. The client is not expected to know the technical details of the law and ought to be able to rely on his attorney to elicit from him the information necessary to handle his case in the most effective, yet legally appropriate, manner.

***

Central to this case, then, is the degree to which an attorney may reasonably rely on representations from her client. An attorney certainly "is not always foreclosed from relying on information from other persons." (citation omitted). . In making statements to the court, lawyers constantly and appropriately rely on information provided by their clients, especially when the facts are contained in a client's computerized records. It is difficult to imagine how attorneys might function were they required to conduct an independent investigation of every factual representation made by a client before it could be included in a court filing. While Rule 9011 "does not recognize a 'pure heart and empty head' defense," (citation omitted),, a lawyer need not routinely assume the duplicity or gross incompetence of her client in order to meet the requirements of Rule 9011. It is therefore usually reasonable for a lawyer to rely on information provided by a client, especially where that information is superficially plausible and the client provides its own records which appear to confirm the information.

That is, an attorney must, in her independent professional judgment, make a reasonable effort to determine what facts are likely to be relevant to a particular court filing and to seek those facts from the client. She cannot simply settle for the information her client determines in advance-- by means of an automated system, no less--that she should be provided with.

***

More generally, a reasonable attorney would not file a motion for relief from stay for cause without inquiring of the client whether it had any information relevant to the alleged cause, that is, the debtor's failure to make payments. Had Doyle made even that most minimal of inquiries, HSBC presumably would have provided her with the information in its files concerning the flood insurance dispute, and Doyle could have included that information in her motion for relief from stay--or, perhaps, advised the client that seeking such a motion would be inappropriate under the circumstances.

With respect to the Taylors' case in particular, Doyle ignored clear warning signs as to the accuracy of the data that she did receive. In responding to the motion for relief from stay, the Taylors submitted documentation indicating that they had already made at least partial payments for some of the months in question. In objecting to the proof of claim, the Taylors pointed out the inaccuracy of the mortgage payment listed and explained the circumstances surrounding the flood insurance dispute. Although Doyle certainly was not obliged to accept the Taylors' claims at face value, they indisputably put her on notice that the matter was not as simple as it might have appeared from the NewTrak file. At that point, any reasonable attorney would have sought clarification and further documentation from her client, in order to correct any prior inadvertent misstatements to the court and to avoid any further errors. Instead, Doyle mechanically affirmed facts (the monthly mortgage payment) that her own prior filing with the court had already contradicted.

Doyle's reliance on HSBC was particularly problematic because she was not, in fact, relying directly on HSBC. Instead, she relied on a computer system run by a third-party vendor. She did not know where the data provided by NewTrak came from. She had no capacity to check the data against the original documents if any of it seemed implausible. And she effectively could not question the data with HSBC. In her relationship with HSBC, Doyle essentially abdicated her professional judgment to a black box. (emphasis added).

In re Taylor, at 284-85.

Kudos to the U.S. Trustee

As a preliminary matter, it is important to recognize the role played by the U.S. Trustee. While the Debtor’s counsel at least raised the issues which allowed the Court to conduct its investigation, the Court of Appeals indicated that Debtor’s counsel was not much better than the Udren firm:

Taylor's counsel was also ultimately sanctioned and removed from the case. Counsel did not perform competently, as is evidenced by the Taylors' failure to contest HSBC's RFAs. She also made a number of inaccurate statements in her representations to the court. However, it is clear that her conduct did not induce the misrepresentations by HSBC or its attorneys. As the bankruptcy court correctly noted, "the process employed by a mortgagee and its counsel must be fair and transparent without regard to the quality of debtor's counsel since many debtors are unrepresented and cannot rely on counsel to protect them."

In re Taylor, at 282, fn. 10. As a result, it is important that the U.S. Trustee’s Office stepped in to protect the integrity of the system. This author has sometimes been critical of the U.S. Trustee’s Office. However, in this case, they did exactly what they should have done—to represent the broader interest of integrity in bankruptcy in a situation where debtor’s counsel was either unable to do so (in the case of Debtor’s initial counsel) or had no financial incentive to do so (presumably with respect to Debtor’s substitute counsel).

What It Means

The meaning of the opinion is that attorneys are professionals and cannot “abdicate (their) professional judgment to a black box.” In age of massive defaults, creditors cannot be faulted for wanting to minimize their costs. However, the attorney is more than an automaton communicating the demands of the client. If attorneys were mere mouthpieces for their clients, there would be no need for them. Instead, the client could simply generate form pleadings using an automated system. Attorneys exist to exercise professional judgment on behalf of their clients. While attorneys can and must be advocates for their clients, Rule 9011 imposes a duty to review the information provided by the client and determine whether it appears to be reasonable. More importantly, once information which once appeared reasonable is placed into doubt, the attorney has a duty to communicate with the client and determine which facts can reasonably be supported.

I believe that attorneys should be skilled craftsman rather than assembly line workers. In this case, a $540 dispute over flood insurance was magnified by a factor of nearly ten times. While it might have been reasonable to rely on the initial information provided by the client through NewTrak, this certainly became unreasonable when the Debtor provided canceled checks showing that payments which the computerized record said did not exist had been made. The significance of Taylor is that for lawyers to continue to have meaning, they must bring something to court above the mere repetition of what their client told them. The Taylor case represented an existential threat to the continuing relevance of attorneys. If the attorney does nothing more than repeat information provided by the client through an automated system, then there is no justification for requiring the additional cost represented by the participation of an attorney. Fortunately, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals provided a justification for the continued involvement of skilled counsel and gave support to the many creditors’ counsel who performs their duties with judgment and skill.

The Final Word

We appreciate that the use of technology can save both litigants and attorneys time and money, and we do not, of course, mean to suggest that the use of databases or even certain automated communications between counsel and client are presumptively unreasonable. However, Rule 11 requires more than a rubber-stamping of the results of an automated process by a person who happens to be a lawyer. Where a lawyer systematically fails to take any responsibility for seeking adequate information from her client, makes representations without any factual basis because they are included in a "form pleading" she has been trained to fill out, and ignores obvious indications that her information may be incorrect, she cannot be said to have made reasonable inquiry. Therefore, we find that the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on Doyle or the Udren Firm itself. However, it did abuse its discretion in imposing sanctions on Udren individually.

In re Taylor, at 286.

Not a Good Idea to Object to Every Claim

You know that nothing good can come from an opinion which begins like this:

This is a case about an affluent debtor who sought to manipulate bankruptcy procedures to accomplish what the Code prohibits--the elimination of all of her credit card debts despite her obvious ability to repay those debts over time. The debtor, Diane Davis, obtained confirmation of a plan in which she proposed to pay her credit card debts in full. The debtor subsequently objected to every claim filed by her creditors based on their alleged failure to attach sufficient documents to their proofs of claim. The debtor withdrew several objections after the creditors responded. The Court has before it the debtor's request for a default order sustaining the remaining objections.

In re Diane Davis, No. 09-42865 (Bankr. E. D. Tex.3/31/11). p. 1. You can find the opinion here.

The Davis case is one of a debtor who tried to follow the letter but not the spirit of the law. The debtor was an above median income debtor who would not qualify for relief under chapter 7. She filed under chapter 13 but tried to avoid paying any of her unsecured debts. She scheduled all of her unsecured debts as disputed and then objected to every claim filed. If the creditor responded, she withdrew her objection. Since most of the creditors did not respond, she thought that she was home free. However, the court had other ideas.

A Few Facts

The Debtor was a single woman with gross monthly wages of $10,428 and disposable income of $3,923.92. The only debts she was delinquent upon were credit cards. She scheduled eight creditors with debts totaling $81,564. Every debt was listed as disputed with the notation "Debtor listed the balance shown on last statement; debtor not presently able to determine if balance is correct and is uncertain if trade name is correct legal creditor."

The debtor filed a plan proposing to pay $3,190 to the chapter 13 trustee for 60 months. Twelve creditors filed proofs of claim totaling$147,400.68. Because the plan proposed to pay $190,400 on claims which were less than this amount, no creditors objected to the plan and it was confirmed.

Then the debtor objected to every claim. The objections asserted that the creditors had not attached sufficient documentation to the claim and that the debtor would withdraw the objection if presented with adequate documentation. The debtor withdrew her objections to five claims after the creditors filed responses. However, the debtor sought default orders on the remaining seven claims. One of the claims that the debtor sought a default on was from Neiman Marcus. Neiman Marcus amended its claim to add documentation but did not file a response. The debtor's statement of financial affairs revealed that the debtor had been making payments on this claim prior to bankruptcy.

The court conducted several hearings on the claims objections. While the debtor was present at one hearing, she did not testify. Debtor's counsel offered a brief on why the claims should be denied but never presented any substantive grounds why the debtor did not owe the debts.

Can the Debtor Deny the Claims of the Non-Responding Creditors?

The Court's answer was "no." Failure to attach supporting documentation, without more, is not a sufficient ground for denying a claim. Judge Rhoades stated:

If an objection to a claim is raised, Section 502(b) provides that the court "shall allow the claim in such amount, except to the extent that" a grounds for disallowance provided by Section 502(b)(1)-(9) applies. (citation omitted). Thus, the Code requires us to overrule a claim objection that does not comply with Section 502(b)--even if the claimant does not appear to raise the issue.

Opinion, p. 11. Thus, the mere fact that the creditor failed to attach sufficient documentation to the claim and then failed to respond to the claims objection was not grounds for denying the claim.

Not only that, the court found that the claims did "substantially" conform to Bankruptcy Rule 3001 such that they were entitled to prima facie validity. Because the debtor did not produce evidence sufficient to rebut the prima facie validity of the claims, the creditor had no duty to respond.

An Interesting Twist

While Judge Rhoades found that the objections should be denied, she also raised the possibility that the debtor was asking for something she really didn't want.

The discharge in a chapter 13 case is different than in a chapter 7 case. (citation omitted). In a chapter 13 case, upon completion of plan payments, a debtor generally is discharged of all debts "provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502" of the Code. (citation omitted). Section 1328(a) does not, by its terms, discharge a chapter 13 debtor of her obligation to repay claims denied solely under Bankruptcy Rule 3001.

Opinion, p. 15. Thus, had the debtor been successful in her non-substantive objections, she would not have discharged the debts.

The Ethical Obligations of the Debtor's Counsel

The Court was not amused as shown by the subheading "The Ethical Obligations of the Debtor's Counsel." The Court noted that filing the schedules and objecting to the claims, debtor's counsel

deliberately chose to (i) ignore the debtor's personal knowledge,and (ii) conduct no independent investigation prior to filing the debtor's bankruptcy schedules and claim objections."

Opinion, p. 21.

The Court went on to state:

It appears to the Court that the debtor and her counsel were motivated by the off-chance that the claimants would not respond to the objections and, consequently, that this Court would sustain the objections without substantive review. 'An off-chance does not satisfy [Bankruptcy] Rule [9011].' (citation omitted). 'This approach of throwing it against the wall and seeing what sticks is precisely the sort of conduct [Bankrutpcy Rule 9011] seeks to counter. (citations omitted).

Opinion, pp.21-22.

The Debtor's Obligation to Act in Good Faith

The Court was not any more impressed with the debtor's conduct.

Regardless of the advice the debtor may have received from her counsel regarding the claims allowance process, she has an obligation to the Court to act in good faith. To confirm a chapter 13 plan, the bankruptcy court must find, among other elements, that 'the plan has been proposed in good faith.' (citation omitted). . . Good faith in this context is not an esoteric legal concept that only lawyers and judges can understand. The question is whether the totality of the circumstances indicates that the plan is unreasonable or that the debtor is attempting to abuse the spirit of the Code. (citation omitted).

Opinion, pp. 22-23.

The Bottom Line

The Court overruled the claims objections, vacated the order confirming the plan, gave the debtor 30 days to file a new plan and scheduled a hearing to determine whether debtor's counsel violated Rule 9011.

What It Means

The chapter 13 bargain is about paying creditors in return for a discharge. The debtor had enough disposable income to pay all of the filed claims in less than sixty months. This would have been a good deal because the debtor would have been able to repay the debts without interest. However, the debtor tried to take a shortcut and eliminate all of her claims on a defect of form. The Court was right to be concerned about the good faith of this practice.

Judge Rejects Defense of The Computer Made Me Do It

A volume creditors' practice is facing sanctions after the court rejected its explanation that faulty computer coding caused it to file erroneous pleadings. The opinion illustrates the tension between the requirements of Rule 9011 and the need to rely on automation in a volume practice. While the final sanctions to be awarded have not yet been decided, the court in this case was clearly exasperated.

The Plan and the Original Objection

A debtor filed chapter 13 and included a debt with respect to a property he was leasing to his brother. The debtor's schedules plainly stated that the property was NOT the debtor's principal residence. The debtor's counsel also claimed to have informed the lender's counsel of this fact prior to bankruptcy.

The debtor proposed a plan which sought to pay the lender the value of its collateral plus interest through the plan. The payments to be made to the lender under the plan exceeded the amount of the rents being received by the debtor. The creditor filed a proof of claim in which it adopted the debtor's valuation of the property.

The lender's attorney filed an objection to confirmation which the court characterized as "grossly erroneous, and to anyone familiar with bankruptcy law, the objection is clearly legal nonsense." Among other things, the objection claimed that:

* The debtor's attorney, rather than the debtor had executed the note;
* That the plan did not pay the arrearages in full (despite the fact that the plan proposed a cram-down rather than a cure of arrearages);
* That the plan impermissibly modified a loan on a principal residence;
* That the lender's administrative claim was deferred over 36 months (despite the fact that the lender did not have an administrative claim); and
* That the plan impermissibly proposed to pay interest on the lender's non-dischargeable unsecured claim (despite the fact that the lender did not have a non-dischargeable claim).

The Debtor responded and pointed out the errors in the objection.

The First Hearing

At the first hearing on confirmation on October 3, local counsel for the lender argued that the plan impermissibly modified a loan on a principal residence. When the debtor responded that the property was not the debtor's principal residence, "local counsel replied that he had been instructed by (the lender's counsel) to ask for a continuance if Debtor made that contention."

This choice of tactics was not good. As the court later found, the objection relating to the principal residence violated Rule 9011 because the lender had no evidence that the debtor's statements were wrong. However, it got worse.

"As clear as that violation as, it is even more egregious that Countrywide continued to advocate that position in open court on October 3, notwithstanding Debtor's written response on September 28. Countrywide obviously had considered Debtor's response, knew that the argument had no validity, and was prepared to abandon the argument by asking for a continuance to implement 'Plan B,' which apparently had not yet been devised. . . . (T)he court believes that the request for a continuance was not made in good faith but was intended simply for delay."

Of course, the Court had not made these findings yet on October 3. However, the court did warn the lender's counsel that it should scrutinize its position in light of Rule 9011.

The Lender Withdraws Its Objection But "Discovers" A New One

After the hearing, Debtor's counsel sent the lender's counsel a letter demanding that the lender cure the violation of Rule 9011. In response, the lender filed a withdrawal of its objection. Unfortunately, this pleading violated Rule 9011 as well. The withdrawal stated that the lender was withdrawing its objection because the Debtor had filed an amended plan which proposed to cure the arrearage. Of course, this was just plain wrong. The Debtor had not filed an amended plan and was still seeking to cram-down the value on the rental property.

To further complicate matters, just four business days prior to the re-scheduled hearing, the lender filed a new objection which asserted that it just "discovered" that it held an absolute assignment of rents and that because the rents belonged to Countrywide, the Debtor could not use them in the plan. The absolute assignment of rents theory used to be a standard weapon used by lenders in single asset real estate cases during the 1980s and caused a lot of controversy at that time. However, the theory had major practical difficulties (such as how the rents could be conveyed to the lender without reducing the debt) and has not been seriously advocated for many years.

The First Opinion

At the continued hearing on November 14, lender's counsel abandoned all of its original objections and argued the absolute assignment of rents. Debtor's counsel objected that she had been sand-bagged. This was a legitimate complaint because the local rules required any objections to be filed five business days before confirmation. As a result, the court continued the hearing once again. However, at this point, the court's displeasure took written form. On November 28, the Court wrote the first of three written opinions in the case. Case No. 06-60121, In re James Patrick Allen (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 11/28/06)(Order for Memoranda and for Rule 7016 Conference And Order for Hearing on Sanctions Under Rule 9011). In this opinion, the court required the parties to brief the absolute assignment of rents issue and to advise the court as to the witnesses and exhibits they planned to introduce. The court also stated that it appeared that the lender's counsel had violated Rule 9011. The court required both local counsel and lender's primary counsel to attend the hearing.

The Second Opinion

After the pre-trial conference on the absolute assignment of rents issue, the court concluded that there were not any disputed issues of fact. The court wrote its second opinion which concluded that the assignment of rents was intended for purposes of security rather than as an absolute assignment. No. 06-60121, In re James Patrick Allen (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 12/20/06)(Memorandum Opinion Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Concerning Order Denying Motion for Turnover & Accounting And Concerning Confirmation of Chapter 13 Plan). As a result, the court confirmed the plan. The court reserved the issue of sanctions for a subsequent opinion.

The Third Opinion

After all of this prologue, the court finally reached the issue of sanctions in a hearing on December 13. No. 06-60121, In re James Patrick Allen (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1/9/07)(Memorandum Opinion Regarding Sanction of Creditor's Attorneys). Prior to this hearing, the Court was aware of what had happened. The important factual issue was why it happened, and whether this would serve to mitigate or explain away the erroneous pleadings. The testimony received on December 13th provided a window into the internal workings of a volume practice.

The initial attorney who handled the file testified that she recognized that the property was not the debtor's homestead. Based on this determination, none of the pleadings raising homestead-related issues should have been filed. Despite this conclusion, a clerical person apparently coded the file as a homestead case. Under the law firm's computer system, certain codes are entered which are then used to generate pleadings. In this case, a clerical employee apparently entered the wrong codes which then generated the wrong pleadings. Thus, garbage in, garbage out. The Court concluded that no meaningful review was given to the computer generated pleadings.

"There was no testimony that anyone at (lender's counsel) reviews the computer-generated pleadings (with the level of care required by FRBP 9011) before they are filed. It was the Court's sense of the testimony that either there is no review, or else the review is so superficial that it is meaningless."

The firm's response to the Court's initial warning about sanctionable conduct was also dictated by the computer system. When local counsel contacted the initial lawyer about the Court's concerns, she testified that she "could not believe the document that was filed under [her] password." However, because the file was coded as a homestead case, the instruction to withdraw the objection generated a pleading geared to a homestead case. The frightening thing is that the computer generated a pleading which might have been appropriate in a particular type of homestead case. However, the pleading would not be appropriate in all circumstances. Thus, even without the erroneous coding, the pleading could well have been wrong.

The Inconclusive Result

The Court found that the lender's principal law firm should be sanctioned for its conduct in the case. However, the Court did not enter a sanction at this time. The Court noted with frustration that he had previously reprimanded the firm and had ordered it to address quality control issues. Two other judges in the Southern District had published opinions about the firm's conduct, including one case where the firm was required to pay $65,000. The Court noted that sanctions under Rule 9011(c)(2) should be sufficient to deter further repetition of the conduct. The Court went on to state:

"Although the Court has concluded that there is sanctionable conduct, after two warnings and a $65,000 monetary sanction, the Court is at a loss to determine the appropriate sanction in this case. If the prior warnings and sanction have not worked, what will?"

The Court ordered the managing attorney of the firm's Houston office to appear at a hearing to be held and to "report to the Court what sanctions would deter further repetitions of this conduct."

This Order places the firm in an unusual position. It is being asked to recommend its own punishment. If the firm suggests too light of a sanction, it may invite severe penalties for failure to appreciate the gravity of its actions. But what is sufficient?

While the Court may well consider monetary sanctions, and will likely award attorney's fees to debtor's counsel, the Court appears to be looking for more of a structural solution. The problem here appears to be a law firm subservient to its computer system. In an atmosphere where codes entered by clerical employees can generate nonsensical pleadings, it is difficult to comply with the responsibilities of a professional. In this case, even the attempt to withdraw an erroneous pleading generated another factually defective document. Perhaps Judge Steen, like another judge before him, will sanction the computer. However, it seems more likely that he will order the humans to take control of the computer. Failing that, he may require that all future pleadings be written with a quill pen and bear the cursive penmanship of the attorney submitting the pleading.

Post-script: Local counsel, who had the unenviable task of presenting the flawed pleadings to the court, escaped sanctions. Although Local Rule 11.2 required local counsel to be fully informed and prepared, the court noted that this rule had not been strictly enforced in the past. Based on the hope that local counsel had "a much greater appreciation of his responsibilities to the Court," the Court declined to assess sanctions against him.