Opinion ID: 1570329
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Traster Matter

Text: McCarthy represented Christopher Traster in a dissolution of marriage action. His wife, Scotti Traster, was represented by the father and son combination of Charles and Justin Deppe. Scotti filed her petition for dissolution on January 28, 2002. During the pendency of the dissolution action, both Christopher and Scotti agreed that McCarthy would represent them in a joint petition for bankruptcy. The parties agreed to file the petition jointly even though they were in the midst of dissolution proceedings because it would be more economical for both of them  there would be only one filing fee for the joint bankruptcy petition. [2] The bankruptcy petition was filed on October 21, 2002, and the debts listed in the bankruptcy petition were discharged on February 12, 2003. On April 17, 2003, the Trasters' dissolution of marriage decree was entered. The parties had agreed upon all terms in the decree except for the payment of attorney fees. In regards to the payment of attorney fees, the court ordered: That [Scotti] shall receive from [Christopher] the sum of $2000.00 for her attorney fees and expenses incurred herein, and that her Attorney Charles Deppe is hereby granted a judgment for said amount, to be due and payable from this date, with interest at the legal rate, until paid in full. In response to this judgment, McCarthy sent Christopher a letter containing the following statements: In going over your bankruptcy petition, Charles Deppe was not added as a creditor on the petition, due to the fact that he hadn't submitted a bill yet. I want to reopen the bankruptcy and include him as a creditor, so we can get rid of this legal bill. . . . I will . . . reopen the matter on your behalf only, and include Mr. Deppe as an unsecured creditor. (Emphasis added.) On August 11, 2003, McCarthy filed a motion to reopen the bankruptcy so Christopher could discharge the court ordered attorney fee judgment. As described in the above-mentioned letter, the motion did not list Scotti as a party to the petition and did not list Scotti as a party to the debt. Scotti eventually learned the bankruptcy case had been reopened. She contacted McCarthy and asked if she could also reopen the bankruptcy to include two recently discovered credit card debts that predated the original bankruptcy petition. McCarthy told her to fax the information on the debts to his office. He told her to stop paying on the debts because they would be discharged upon reopening the bankruptcy. Scotti sent him a copy of the bills and stopped making payments on the credit cards. At some point, Justin Deppe contacted Scotti and informed her she would still be liable for the legal bill if Christopher's liability for the $2000 was discharged through bankruptcy. Scotti then sent a letter to McCarthy telling him she did not approve of Christopher trying to discharge the $2000 debt to her dissolution attorney. Charles Deppe challenged Christopher's attempt to discharge the $2000 debt and was ultimately successful, in part because McCarthy did not attend the hearing on the matter. McCarthy never amended the bankruptcy petition to include Scotti's two additional credit cards because there was some dispute as to whether Scotti was to pay the required filing fee before McCarthy filed the information about the two credit cards. Scotti filed an ethics complaint when her checking account was garnished for failure to pay one of the two credit cards. The Board sent McCarthy three notices regarding this complaint and he failed to respond to any of the notices.