Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitattorneytrustbankruptcychapter 13 bankruptcy
lawsuitattorneytrustbankruptcychapter 13 bankruptcy

Related Cases

Hotel Associates, Inc. v. Rieves, Rubens and Mayton, 2014 Ark. 254, 435 S.W.3d 488
View Case »
Glaser v. Cincinnati Milacron, Inc., 808 F.2d 285, 55 USLW 2423, 6 Fed.R.Serv.3d 737
View Case »
In re International Systems and Controls Corp. Securities Litigation, 693 F.2d 1235, 35 Fed.R.Serv.2d 732, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,036
View Case »
In re Cendant Corp. Litigation, 264 F.3d 201, Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,521, 50 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1058
View Case »
Abrams v. DLA Piper US LLP, Not Reported in N.E.2d, 2013 IL App (1st) 113051-U, 2013 WL 3212171
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

In re Mayeaux, 269 B.R. 614, 47 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 281

Facts

Edwin C. Mayeaux, a financial and investment advisor, sought legal representation from attorney Edwin E. Buckner, Jr. regarding allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation related to his role with a client, Dottie Rush. Buckner provided extensive legal services to Mayeaux, including document review and advice, leading to a state court lawsuit against Mayeaux. Faced with escalating legal costs and potential criminal charges, Mayeaux filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy shortly after retaining Buckner's services. However, Buckner failed to disclose significant payments made by Mayeaux both before and after the bankruptcy filing.

Edwin C. Mayeaux, a financial and investment advisor, sought legal representation from attorney Edwin E. Buckner, Jr. regarding allegations of mismanagement and misappropriation related to his role with a client, Dottie Rush. Buckner provided extensive legal services to Mayeaux, including document review and advice, leading to a state court lawsuit against Mayeaux. Faced with escalating legal costs and potential criminal charges, Mayeaux filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy shortly after retaining Buckner's services. However, Buckner failed to disclose significant payments made by Mayeaux both before and after the bankruptcy filing.

Issue

Did attorney Edwin E. Buckner, Jr. violate his fee disclosure obligations under 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) by failing to disclose payments received from the debtor before and after the bankruptcy filing?

Did attorney Edwin E. Buckner, Jr. violate his fee disclosure obligations under 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) by failing to disclose payments received from the debtor before and after the bankruptcy filing?

Rule

Under 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b), attorneys are required to fully disclose all fees received from a debtor within one year prior to the bankruptcy filing if those payments were made in contemplation of or in connection with the bankruptcy case.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 2016(b), attorneys are required to fully disclose all fees received from a debtor within one year prior to the bankruptcy filing if those payments were made in contemplation of or in connection with the bankruptcy case.

Analysis

The court analyzed the timing and nature of the payments made to Buckner, concluding that they were indeed made in contemplation of and in connection with the bankruptcy case. The court noted that Mayeaux's initial consultation with Buckner occurred less than six weeks before the bankruptcy filing, and the services rendered were directly related to the financial pressures leading to the bankruptcy. The court emphasized that the attorney's failure to disclose these payments undermined the integrity of the bankruptcy process.

The court analyzed the timing and nature of the payments made to Buckner, concluding that they were indeed made in contemplation of and in connection with the bankruptcy case. The court noted that Mayeaux's initial consultation with Buckner occurred less than six weeks before the bankruptcy filing, and the services rendered were directly related to the financial pressures leading to the bankruptcy. The court emphasized that the attorney's failure to disclose these payments undermined the integrity of the bankruptcy process.

Conclusion

The court held that Buckner was required to disclose all payments received from Mayeaux and emphasized the critical importance of transparency in attorney-client financial transactions in bankruptcy cases.

The court held that Buckner was required to disclose all payments received from Mayeaux and emphasized the critical importance of transparency in attorney-client financial transactions in bankruptcy cases.

Who won?

The United States Trustee prevailed in the case, as the court ruled that Buckner had violated his disclosure obligations, thereby reinforcing the need for attorneys to fully disclose their financial dealings with clients in bankruptcy proceedings.

The United States Trustee prevailed in the case, as the court ruled that Buckner had violated his disclosure obligations, thereby reinforcing the need for attorneys to fully disclose their financial dealings with clients in bankruptcy proceedings.

You must be