Opinion ID: 2185998
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Bankruptcy cases

Text: Movant represented Terry Minton in a bankruptcy matter. Movant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition for Mr. Minton, but he deliberately failed to abide by his client's decision to withdraw the reaffirmation agreement on a car note. This decision ultimately led to Mr. Minton's car loan not being discharged in bankruptcy. Movant also failed to tell Mr. Minton that he still owed money on the loan, that Movant had received a letter from the bank's attorney indicating that the debt was not satisfied, and that the bank was filing a lawsuit against Mr. Minton. Instead, he tried to negotiate a settlement without Mr. Minton's knowledge. When the bank filed a complaint and subsequent motion for default judgment against Mr. Minton, Movant failed to file an answer to either, and without Mr. Minton's knowledge, a default judgment was entered. Movant admits that these acts violated SCR 3.130-1.2, 1.3, 1.4(a) and (b), 8.3(c) and 1.15(a). Jerry Arington hired Movant to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition as well as to provide other legal work. Movant did not file the bankruptcy petition. He falsely stated in his response to a Bar Complaint that he had done so. Movant admits that these acts violated SCR 3.130-1.3, 8.3(c) and 8.1(a). Movant agreed to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for Janie E. Shinkle. Upon Ms. Shinkle's decision to convert the petition to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, she received a refund. Ms. Shinkle gave the extra money to Movant to place in escrow and to pay her 2001 property taxes and conversion fee. Despite numerous promises, Movant never paid Ms. Shinkle's taxes. When Ms. Shinkle filed a Bar Complaint against Movant, he made false statements to the Inquiry Commission, stating that he had paid the taxes with the money, when he had not. Movant admits that these acts violated SCR 3.130-1.3, 8.1(a) and 8.3(b) and (c). Kim Chapman hired Movant to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf. Movant delayed for ten (10) months in filing the petition. When he finally filed the petition, Movant made a false statement to the bankruptcy court, asserting that he had received a $750 fee, when he had only received $510. Movant admits that these acts violated SCR 3.130-1.3 and 3.3(a)(1). Movant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition for Mary Mitchell, but while still representing her, he was suspended from the practice of law in Kentucky. Movant violated his Order of Suspension by failing to inform Ms. Mitchell, in writing, that he could no longer represent her. Movant  admits that these acts violated SCR 3.130-1.16(d) and 3.4(c). Kim Franklin hired Movant to file a bankruptcy petition on her behalf. Before the petition was filed, Movant was suspended. Rather than informing Ms. Franklin that he could no longer represent her due to his suspension, Movant continued to advise her that he would file the petition. Movant also failed to return Ms. Franklin's file and unearned fee upon the termination of the attorney/client relationship. Movant admits that these acts violated SCR 3.130-1.16(d), 3.4(c), 5.5(a) and 8.3(b) and (c). Movant was hired by Todd Ogden to represent him in a bankruptcy case. Shortly thereafter, Movant was suspended. Movant failed to notify Mr. Ogden that he had been suspended and could no longer represent him, failed to return the file and unearned fee (although he told the Inquiry Commission that he had), and failed to complete the representation due to his suspension. Movant admits that these acts violated SCR 3.130-1.16(d), 3.4(c), 8.1(a) and 8.3(b) and (c).