Opinion ID: 705215
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Prosecuting the malpractice claim without the permission of the trustees;

Text: 25 3. Preventing the substitution of the LeMai trustee into the state lawsuit when the trustee [was] a legitimate party in interest; 26 4. Misleading the state court as to bankruptcy law; 27 5. Refusing to relinquish proceeds to the LeMai trustee; 28 6. Attempting to take proceeds in contravention of the settlement agreement in violation of the automatic stay; 29 7. Attempting to circumvent the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court by means of a motion to allocate recovery; 30 8. Harassing the trustee's counsel with threats of sanctions and disbarment. 31 Id. at 898. 32 In light of the above, the bankruptcy court did not err by finding that the Appellants had willfully violated the automatic stay. 33