Opinion ID: 1126950
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the one year suspension is too severe a penalty for appellant's acts.

Text: Mathes submits that the underlying purposes of Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2016, requiring attorneys to disclose their fees to the Bankruptcy Court, are to protect the debtor from overcharging, and to insure that creditors receive their fair share. Mathes argues that in this case, the debtor was vastly undercharged, and therefore, while (he) did not follow the letter of the law but the spirit of the law was fulfilled. Mathes also offers the following explanation for his failure to report or submit his fees for approval: Appellant could not file this later because the U.S. Trustee that brought the suit threaten (sic) to object because it was not timely done. Therefore, appellant agreed to the judgment. Further, Mathes argues that since no living person, company, (or) corporation was victimized by or suffered from his acts, a one year suspension is too severe a penalty. Finally, Mathes argues that under Culpepper v. Mississippi State Bar , the purpose of sanctions is to protect the public, not to punish the attorney. He submits that he is no danger to the public, and that his suspension would be punitive, and of no benefit to the public; serving only to ruin his career and life. Mathes requests that this Court void his suspension. The Bar argues that Mathes engaged in misrepresentation and open defiance of the Bankruptcy Court, and that a one-year suspension was appropriate under the circumstances of the case and this Court's decisions. The Bar contends that there was no evidence of extenuating circumstances such as ill health or matters of personal distress; while Mathes alluded to financial and health problems, he never filed a petition, motion, or application for an extension of time on grounds of financial hardship or ill health. The Bar notes that Mathes' prior admonitions may be considered as an aggravating factor.