Opinion ID: 1992646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Count I: Ronald M. Nelson

Text: 3. On May 8, 1993, Respondent was retained by Ronald M. Nelson to represent him in filing a petition under Chapter 13 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. A written agreement was executed wherein Mr. Nelson agreed to pay her $775 in legal fees plus the $150 filing fee. (BX 22). 4. On June 4, 1994, Respondent filed a Chapter 13 petition and proposed payment plan on behalf of Mr. Nelson in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland in a petition styled In re Ronald M. Nelson, Bankruptcy Case No. 93-1-3165-PM. (BX 24). 5. In a written notice dated July 1, 1993, the Bankruptcy Court scheduled a Section 341 meeting of creditors for July 30, 1993, at 11:30 a.m. at the Office of the United States Trustee. In that same notice, a confirmation hearing was set for August 4, 1993, at 2:00 p.m. (BX 24(a), BX 26). 6. On July 30, 1993, Mr. Nelson appeared in the Office of the United States Trustee (Trustee) for his Section 341 hearing; Respondent failed to appear. After waiting one hour for Respondent, the Trustee declined to interrogate Mr. Nelson concerning his bankruptcy plan in the absence of his counsel and terminated the meeting. 7. Respondent did not appear at the July 30, 1993, meeting of creditors, purportedly because she did not receive the mailed notice described above in ¶ 5. Respondent, however, did not provide any explanation as to why she had not inquired into the status of the Nelson matter when she had not received a scheduling order during the two-month period following her filing of the bankruptcy petition. 8. Respondent appeared at the scheduled August 4, 1993, hearing. Confirmation of the proposed plan was not approved because it contained deficiencies that had not been addressed or corrected. (BX 30). 9. On August 4, 1993, the Trustee filed a Motion to Dismiss Mr. Nelson's case because Respondent's failure to appear on July 30, 1993, had caused an unreasonable delay in the case which was prejudicial to the creditors. 10. On August 7, 1993, the Trustee filed his report to the Bankruptcy Court concerning Mr. Nelson's Chapter 13 statement and plan. The Trustee did not recommend confirmation of the plan because: (a) the debtor had failed to submit the required minimum payment of $950 as a deposit on the plan; (b) the debtor had failed to show there were no post-petition arrearages as to any of his secured debts; (c) the debtor had failed to provide the Trustee with previously requested documentation verifying the income information provided in the debtor's schedules; (d) the plan failed to provide for interest on the mortgage default, as provided by the case law; and (e) the plan was underfunded. 11. On August 11, 1993, the Court issued an Order denying confirmation of Mr. Nelson's Chapter 13 plan. The Order, however, granted Mr. Nelson leave to file an amended plan on or before August 24, 1993. The Court cautioned that Mr. Nelson's case might be dismissed if he failed to file his amended plan in a timely manner. A copy of this Order was mailed to Respondent. 12. Respondent did not file Mr. Nelson's amended Chapter 13 plan on or before August 24, 1993, as directed by the Court's Order. The amended plan was filed two days out of time on August 26, 1993. In addition, Respondent failed to serve copies of the amended plan on the standing Chapter 13 Trustee, the U.S. Trustee, or any of the parties in interest as required by Bankruptcy Rule 3015(d) and as directed in the Court's August 11, 1993, Order. The Court's deputy clerk issued a notice of deficiency, but it was not remedied and no explanation was provided to the Court for the late-filed amended plan. 13. On September 28, 1993, the Court issued an Order dismissing Mr. Nelson's case. 14. On October 22, 1993, Respondent moved for reconsideration of the September 28, 1993, Order dismissing Mr. Nelson's case. The motion was denied on October 26, 1993. On November 18, 1993, Respondent filed a second motion for reconsideration of the Order dismissing Mr. Nelson's case based on alleged mistakes made in a Memorandum of Decision dated October 25, 1993. [3] On December 14, 1993, the Court denied Respondent's second motion for reconsideration.