In re Blasingame

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Nov. 7, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. reverses the bankruptcy court’s order sanctioning the attorney under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927. The court holds that the movant failed to satisfy the twenty-one day safe harbor in Rule 9011 and the one exception to the safe harbor did not apply because the attorney did not actually sign the petition, although he did advise on the case. Further, sanctions under § 1927 were not appropriate because the bankruptcy judge found that the attorney’s behavior fell short of subjective bad faith. The statute requires tactics that far exceed zealous advocacy. Opinion below.

Judge: Preston

Attorney for Movant: Malone Akerly Martin, Bruce W. Akerly, Ballin, Ballin & Fishman, Carl Barry Ward

Attorney for Appellant: Edward Michael Bearman

Author: Matt Lindblom

2016-11-07-in-re-blasingame

In re Jones

(6th Cir. B.A.P. Mar. 3, 2016)

The Sixth Circuit B.A.P. reverses the bankruptcy court’s sanctioning of a lawyer under Bankruptcy Rule 9011. The bankruptcy court sua sponte entered a show cause order to address whether the bankruptcy court should find the attorney in violation of Rule 9011. Following a hearing, the court entered an order holding the attorney liable for $26,000 in attorney fees and revoking his ECF privileges. The B.A.P. reviews the record and finds that the bankruptcy court relied on clearly erroneous factual findings to support the sanctions order and that attorney fees could not be awarded because the show cause order was issued sua sponte. Opinion below.

2016-03-03 – in re jones

Author: Matt Lindblom