FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTH CI RCUI T SEPTEMBER 22, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 8- 16 03 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock et No. 0 8- 00 05 8- CV-ORL-2 2, BKCY No . 03 -BK-0 80 35 -KSJ

IN RE:

LENTE K INTERNATIONAL , INC.,
Deb to r.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ MIC HAEL MOECKER, as l iq ui da ti ng tru st ee fo r Len te k In te rn at io na l, In c.,
Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t,

ve rs us GREENSPOON, MARDER, HIRSC HFELD, RAFKIN, ROSS, BERGER & ABRAMS ANTON, P.A., GREGORY J. BLODIG,
Defen da nt s- App el le es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ct of F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ ( Sep te m be r 22 , 20 09 )Befo re BARKETT, PRYOR an d C OX, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

PER CURI AM:
Mi ch ael Mo eck er (“ th e Trus te e”), t h e li qu id at in g tru st ee of Deb to r Len te k

In te rn at io na l, In c. (“ Len te k” or “ the D eb to r”), ap pe al s th e su m m ary jud gm en t gr an te d

to th e la w fir m of Green sp oo n, Mar de r, Hirs ch fie ld , Rafk in , Ro ss , Berg er & Abr am s
Ant on , P.A. (“ Green sp oo n” ) an d Bl od ig (co ll ect iv el y , “D efen da nt s” ) by th e
ba nk ru pt cy co ur t. Mo eck er al so ch al le n g e s in te rlo cu to ry or de rs of th e ba nk ru pt cy

co ur t up on whi ch t h e su m m ary jud gm en t was ba se d. W e fin d no erro r in th e
ba nk ru pt cy

co ur t’s d eci si on s an d a ffi rm th e jud gm en t.
I. BACKG ROUND

Mo eck er b ro ug ht two ad ve rs ary act io ns in th e b an kr up tc y co ur t. T he fir st of
th es e act io ns so ug ht to reco up fro m Green sp oo n an al le ge dl y frau du le nt co nv ey an ce
fro m Len te k fo r se rv ic es th at al le ge dl y were pe rfo rm ed by G r e e n s po on fo r Lui s
Len ti ne (a Len te k of

fic er) pe rs on al ly, r a t h e r th an fo r th e Deb to r. The se co nd
ad ve rs ary act io n al le ge d th at Green sp oo n an d Bl od ig (an at to rn ey at th e Green sp oo n
fir m ) ha d co m

m it te d m al pr act ic e an d br each ed th ei r fid uc ia ry d ut ie s to Len te k by

rep res en t i n g b o t h Len ti ne an d Len te k, who ha d co nf li ct in g in te res ts , in a st oc k

pu rch as e an d sa le tra ns act io n. The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t co ns o li da te d th e act io ns fo r

2pu rp os es of res ol vi ng th e co m m on fact ua l is su es , th en he ld an ev id en ti ary he ari ng on
th e q ue st io n o f whe th er Gree ns po on an d B lo di g re pr es en te d Len te k.

At th e he ari ng , Len ti ne an d Dur ek (Len te k’s CEO at th e ti me o f th e st oc k

tra ns act io n) te st ifi ed th a t t h ey di d no t be li ev e th at Green sp oo n or Bl od ig ha d

rep res en te d Len te k in th e tra ns act io n at is su e. Bo th m en di sc la ime d h i r i n g an

at to rn ey to rep res en t Len te k fo r th at pu rp os e. Oth er wit ne ss es , who were no t Len te k
of fic ers or di rect or s, te st ifi ed th at th ey th ou gh t Len te k ha d be en rep res en te d by

Green sp oo n. And , Mo eck er pr es en te d so m e do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce fro m whi ch th e
in fere nc e co ul d b e d rawn th at th e Defen da nt s h ad rep res en te d Len te k.
Afte r th e he ari ng , th e ba n k r u p t c y co ur t is su ed le ng th y Fi nd in gs of Fact an d

Co nc lu si on s of Law an d a m or e su cci nc t or de r th at co nc lu de d: “ The de fen da nt s, th e
la w fir m of Green sp oo n, Mar de r, Hirs ch fel d, Rafk in , Ro ss , Berg er & Abr am s Ant on , P.A., an d Greg or y Bl od ig , in di vi du al ly, d i d no t es ta bl is h an at to rn ey -cl ie nt
rel at io ns hi p wit h th e co rp or at e de bt or , Le nt ek In te rn at io na l, In c.” (R.8 -1 2- 9 a t 2 .)
The reaf te r, Green sp oo n an d Bl od ig m ov ed f o r su m m ary jud gm en t in th e se co nd
ad ve rs ary act io n. The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t gr an te d th e m ot io n an d en te red jud gm en t fo r
th e Defen da nt s.
Mo eck er ap pe al ed to th e di st ric t co ur t, arg ui ng th at th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t erre d

in fin di ng no at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p, and as ki ng th at th e jud gm en t be vaca te d.

3In a co m

pr eh en si ve ord er t ha t an al y zed Mo eck er’s l eg al an d fa ct ua l ar gu m en ts , th e
di st ric t co ur t af

fir m ed th e b an kr

up tc y co ur t i n a ll res pe ct s.
Mo eck er no w ap pe al s to th is co ur t , c h a l l e n gi ng th e jud gm en t in th e se co nd
ad ve rs ary pr oc eed in g an d th e or de rs fin di ng no at to r n e y- c l i en t rel at io ns hi p up on
whi ch th e fi na l ju dg m en t was ba se d.

II . ISSUE ON APPEAL AND CONTENTI ONS OF TH E PARTIE S
Thi s ap pe al pr es en ts on e qu es ti on : whe th er th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t co rrec tl y
de te rm in ed th at no at to rn ey -cl ie n t rel at io ns hi p ex is te d be twee n th e Deb to r an d
Defen da nt s.
Mo eck er arg ue s, as he di d in th e di st ric t co ur t, th at th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t erre d by ap pl y in g an in co rrec t le ga l st an da rd to de te rm in e whe th er an at to rn ey -cl ie nt
rel at io ns hi p was fo rm ed

. Sp eci fic al ly, he arg ue s th at th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t erre d whe n
it he ld th at Fl or id a reco gn iz es on ly on e te st fo r whe th er an at torn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p

was fo rm ed (n am el y , th e reas on ab le subj ec ti ve be li ef of th e cl ie nt th at th e rel at io ns hi p
ha d b een for m ed ). 1

Arguing that there is ambig uity in Florida law reg arding the proper test for u n d er wh at 1 circ umstances an attorney -client rela tionship is forme d , M oecke r has moved this court to cer tify questions to the Florida Supreme Court. We do not perc eive the ambig uity Moecke r does. And, as d i s cussed below, even if we did perc eive ambig uity , its resolution would not be o u t co m edeter minative in this case. The ref ore, w e DEN Y the motion.

4And , Mo eck er arg ue s th at , ev en if th e ba nk ru pt cy co u r t a p p li ed th e co rrec t

le ga l st an da rd , it erre d by ov erl oo ki ng so m e e v i d e n ce an d m is co ns tru in g ot he r

ev id en ce, co m

m it ti ng cl ear erro r in th e fact ua l fin di ng s th at le d to it s co nc lu si on th at

no att or ne y -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p e xi st ed . To su pp or t t ha t arg um en t, Mo eck er ar gu es
th at th e ev id en ce de m on st rat ed th at , ev en if th e Deb to r ha d a be li ef th at no at to rn ey cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p e xi st ed , th at be li ef was no t re as on ab le

. Defen da nt s res po nd th at th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t co rrec tl y ap pl ie d th e pr op er te st

un de r Fl or id a la w to de te rm in e whe th er an att or ne y -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p e xi st ed

.

II I. STANDARDS OF REVI EW

“ As th e ‘seco nd co ur t of rev ie w of a ba nk ru pt cy co ur t ’s ju d g m en t,’ we
in de pe nd en tl y ex am in e th e fact ua l an d le ga l de te rm in at io ns of th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t

an d em pl oy t h e s a me s t a nd ard s of rev ie w as th e di st ric t co ur t.” In re In t’l Admi n.
Se rv s., In c. , 40 8 F.3 d 68 9, 69 8 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 05 ) ( qu ot in g In re I s s a c L e a se co , In c. , 38 9 F.3 d 12 05 , 12 09 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 04 ); In re Cl ub Ass oc

. , 95 1 F.2 d 12 23 , 12 28 (1 1t h
Ci r. 19 92 )). “ Lik e th e di st ric t co ur t, we rev ie w th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact
fo r cl ear erro r an d th e co ur t’s co nc lu si on s of la w an d m ix ed qu es ti on s of la w an d fact
de no vo .” In re Co x , 49 3 F.3 d 13 36 , 13 40 n.9 (1 1t h Ci r. 20 07 ) ( ci ti ng In re Ca lv er t , 90 7 F.2 d 10 69 , 10 71 (1 1t h Ci r.19 90 )). A fact ua l fin di ng is no t cl earl y erro ne ou s

u nl es s “ th is co ur t, aft er rev ie win g al l of th e ev id en ce, [is ] le ft wit h th e de fin it e a n d

5fir m co nv ic ti on th at a m is ta ke ha s b een co m m it te d.” In re In t’l Admi n. Ser vs ., In c. , 40 8 F .3d at 6 98 (ci ta ti on om it te d)

. IV. DIS CUSSI ON

W e s e e n o m eri t in Mo eck er’s arg um en ts

. The ba nk ru pt cy co ur t co rrec tl y

ap pl ie d ex is ti ng Fl or id a la w to de te rm in e whe th er an at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p

ex is ts . As we st at ed in Ja cks on v. Bell So ut h Tel eco mms. , 3 72 F.3 d 12 50 (1 1t h Ci r.
20 04 ), th e te st Fl or id a co ur ts ha ve us ed to de te rm in e if an at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p

ex is ts is : (1 ) th e p ut at iv e cl ie nt co ns ul ts wit h an at to rn ey an d, s ub se qu en tl y , (2) th e
cl ie nt ha s a reas on ab l e s u b je c ti ve be li ef “ th at he is co ns ul ti ng a la wy er in th at

cap aci ty an d hi s m an ife st ed in te nt io n is to se ek pr of es si on al le ga l ad vi ce.” Id

. at 12 81 ( qu ot in g Bar th ol ome w v. Bar th ol ome w , 61 1 So

. 2d 85 , 86 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct

. App

. 19 92 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io ns , em

ph as is , an d ci ta ti o n o mitt ed )). The re is no ev id en ce in th e

reco rd th at an y on e act in g on be ha lf of t h e D e b t or co rp or at io n co ns ul te d wit h

Green sp oo n or Bl od ig se ek in g le ga l ad vi ce fo r th e Deb to r. And , th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t
fo un d th at th e weig ht of th e ev id en ce, in cl ud in g th e te st im on y of Len ti ne an d Dur ek (th e on ly wit ne ss es who ha d f i r s t

- ha nd kn owl ed ge of th e in te nt of th e Deb to r

co r p o r a t io n) was th at th e Deb to r he ld no be li ef th at it ha d an at to rn ey -cl ie nt
rel at io ns hi p wi th th e Defen da nt s. Hav in g rev ie wed th e rec or d, we ar e n ot lef t wi th
th e de fin it e an d fir m co nv ic ti on th at a m is ta ke ha s be en co m m it te d by th e ba nk ru pt cy

6co ur t. W hi le th ere was ev id en c e t h a t th e Deb to r m ay ha ve ha d an at to rn ey -cl ie nt

rel at io ns hi p wit h th e De f e n d a n ts , su bs ta nt ia l ev id en ce su pp or ts th e ba nk ru pt cy

co ur t’s fi nd in g c on tra ry , and we fin d n o c le ar er ro r.
Mo eck er arg ue s th at th e rea so na bl e su bjec ti ve be li ef o f th e cl ie nt te st sh ou ld

n o t b e t h e on ly te st av ai la bl e to de te rm in e whe th er an at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p

ex is ts

. Bu t, as th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t an d di st ric t co ur t reco gn iz ed , Mo eck er cit es no

au th or it y for hi s as se rti on th at , to sa ti sf y th e at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p el em en t o f

a m al pr act ic e cl ai m un de r Fl or id a la w, t he at to rn ey m us t on ly ren de r le ga l s e r v ic es

to th e pu ta ti ve cl ie nt

. In fact , i n Ja cks on , we he ld to th e co nt rary. Id

. at 12 81 n.2 9 (“ [I]t is th e be li ef of the p ut at iv e cl ie nt an d n ot th e la wy er’s acti on s th at de te rm in es
whe th er a la wy er-c li en t rel at io ns hi p ha s de ve lo pe d.” ) ( ci ti ng Dea n v. Dea n , 60 7 So

. 2d 49 4, 49 6- 97 (Fl a. Dis t. Ct

. App

. 19 92 )). Mo eck er’s al te rn at iv e arg um en t th at a

pu ta ti ve cl ie nt can no t su cces sf ul ly di sc la im an at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p un le ss hi s
be li ef th at no su ch rel at io ns hi p ex is ts is reas on ab le st ret ch es ex is ti ng Fl or id a la w an d,

in an y ev en t, do es no t ch an ge th e ou tc om e of th is cas e. Fi rs t, it is no t cl ear th at

Mo eck er m ad e th is arg um en t in th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t. In an y ev en t, aft er co ns id eri ng

te st imo n y a n d do cu m en ta ry ev id en ce, th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t fo un d th at Len ti ne an d

Dur ek , th e on ly rep res en ta ti ve s of th e Deb to r, di d no t be li ev e th at th e Deb to r ha d an

at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p wit h th e Defen da nt s. And , by di sc us si ng ot he r ev id en ce

7co ns is te nt wit h Len ti ne ’s an d Dur ek ’s te st im on y (s uc h as th e fact th at Bl od ig di d no t

act as if he rep res en te d th e co rp or at io n in th e st oc k tra ns act io n) , th e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t
im pl ic it ly fo un d th at be li ef was reas on ab le

. Si tt in g in rev ie w, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d

t h a t t h e ba nk ru pt cy co ur t’s fin di ng was su pp or te d by bo th wit ne ss te st im on y an d

ot he r ev id en ce an d th at , ev en un de r th e te st Mo eck er pr op os es , he do es no t su ccee d.

W e ag ree. The ev id en ce su pp or ts a fin di ng th at th e Deb to r’s be li ef th at no at to rn ey cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p e xi st ed was re as on ab le

. V. CONCLUSIO N

Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s, we fin d no erro r in th e ba n k r u p t c y co ur t’s

co nc lu si on th at no at to rn ey -cl ie nt rel at io ns hi p ex is te d be twee n th e Deb to r an d
Defen da nt s an d a ffi rm

th e su m m ary jud gm en t fo r Green sp oo n a nd Blo di g.
AFFIR MED.

8