As we have previously noted on WWL, bankruptcy judge Bruce A. Markell does not take kindly to the antics of attorneys. There is, perhaps, no better illustration of this than BAM's (fairly) recent sanctioning of local bankruptcy pin-up boy, Randolph H. Goldberg (whose website strangely links to his DEX yellow pages ad, and if you click on his advertisement in the bottom corner you get the bonus of a 1990's era Glamour Shot photo of him).
BankruptcyProfBlog has a decent summary of the opinion, and it's quite a doozy. The facts are a bit convoluted, but apparently Goldberg was being a naughty boy and filed multiple Chapter 13 petitions for a single debtor (hey, extra fees, who can blame him?).
BAM, however, had none of it. He dropped the hammer on Goldberg and handed down the following sanctions:
- Goldberg received a public reprimand for his conduct in the form of the publication of the opinion of these cases in the West Reporter system, and in any other reporter system generally publishing bankruptcy court opinions.
- Goldberg had to return all fees charged to his client.
- Goldberg was directed to submit a copy of the opinion of this case with every fee application he submits in this district for work done during the two-year period following the date of entry of this opinion. During such period, he was also directed to deliver a copy of the opinion to each client that he files a bankruptcy petition for, once his aggregate billings for that client, for any one case or related matters, exceed $5,000.
- For the two-year period following the date of entry of the opinion of this case, should Goldberg be served with a motion or an order to show cause that seeks, as relief, sanctions for his conduct in a case or proceeding in this court, or in any other state or federal court in Nevada, he shall deliver a copy of the opinion to the person or entity serving him with such motion or order, and shall include a copy of such opinion in any response to such motion or order that is filed with the court.
- To the extent that the client still desired his discharge, Goldberg should pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, as may be necessary for the client to obtain his discharge.
Ouch! We're curious to know if Goldberg is actually abiding by these sanctions. Does anyone know if he is handing out copies of this opinion to clients, or has his maximum charge for any client changed to $4,999.99?
(BankruptcyProfBlog; Thanks Tipsters!)
Oh don't get us wrong Legally UnBound, WWL will publish any stories about corruption and payoffs. We just need to have documentation.
ReplyDeletePlease send us any news articles, bankruptcy opinions, financial disclosures that prove your corruption allegations to nevadalegal@gmail.com
Well - at least 'Legally UnBound' has an 'identity' as he said in a previous posting. It's still an anonymous 'identity' though so he did not actually do what he implied you were going to do - identify himself.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Legal Eagle on this - I can accuse people of whatever I want, but accusations are crap. If you, Legally UnBound' want to expose something, actually expose it by providing proof, don't just point to it and make faces.
Get a grip Emotionally, err Legally UnBound. This is a gossip blog not the Washington Post. Just because you're bent out of shape doing debtor's work doesn't mean you need to take out your frustrations on attorneys and judges who are good at what they do. I'm sure there have been trustees who have double dipped - but you're getting into the conspiracy theory range. Post some proof - don't ask a blog writer to d your investigation for you.
ReplyDeleteDon't worry "Anonymous", I'm not telling people to do "[my] investigation for [me]". Last I checked, Markell is a public figure and we ALL should keep him on his toes and not tolerate his disregard for "equity". I do agree with you that some of my comments are not only borderline conspiracy theory, but likely cross over into it, full blown. I'll keep that in "check". Point taken. I'll keep you in the loop on the information I know. I'm getting it from several sources.
ReplyDeleteTo "Legal Eagle": I think you are doing a great jog, & I don't think you should use your real name, unlike some of your anonymous bloggers. The reason I commented to you, is to see if you know more. Here is a head start...
I'll get you more info.
As for the first "Anonymous said...", nice try. However, all you need to know about me is in my Profile. If you think posting your real name makes the truth more real, well, then post your own name. I'll keep my blogger identity, as I always do & as I told you I would do. I've had it since WeBlogging started. I did not imply something that your overactive curiosity created. If 10% of what I said is true, you should be concerned. Besides, I like Vegas, no need to get forced out of town just yet. As for the proof, I'm not going to dump it on the WWL blog in some funny comment. It is coming in due time on my new Blog. Check my profile.
To the next "Anonymous said...", I understand that this is a gossip blog. I think that is GREAT. But surely you have some sources and some verification. Given that there is not really anything like this Blog out in the community, WWL should consider expanding. This Blog could really be great, not just a resource for young attorneys to check out salaries and the dirt at LBBS & WEMED. As for Markell, I will post the information on my new Blog when I'm done with the article. I'm working on a few right now. Like I said, Markell is not priority #1.
As for:
"Just because you're bent out of shape doing debtor's work doesn't mean you need to take out your frustrations on attorneys and judges who are good at what they do."
You could not be more wrong. I don't focus on debtor's work. Are you implying that Markell is a "creditor's judge" and is not equitable to debtors. Funny, I was thinking that, too. But it is not his main problem.
Like most things in life, it is not that simple. One cute comment on a Blog is just that, a cute comment. Unless you are providing "value" to the Cloud, you are just making the waters muddy. Anyone can be pithy. I respect most of the judges and attorneys in this town, even the ones that take and give favors. But when it comes to challenging them...not easy. It took 15 years for the FBI to figure out the Personal Injury scam that is being prosecuted in federal court & they can't even get all the information they need to prove the case. Sadly, I figured this scam out in 30 days. How do you think I was treated when I questioned it? But, that did not make me roll over, it is just that I am only one small voice. Even if I were the President of the State Bar, which I may be, I could not expose these things without repercussions.
My point in all of this is that WE are not that dumb. We are allowed to question, allowed to have an opinion. I am very good at what I do, that does not mean that I am right all the time. The legal field is a cesspool of egomaniacs. Sometimes, in the right environment (like LV) this cesspool promotes unethical actions by ethical people who are "looking around" and thinking that it is OK 'cause everyone agrees. Some even weave a web of case law, statute and dictum to cloud the ethics.
I'll post more later. For now, let's keep the discussion alive.
Question them. Question me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteLegally UnBound = TFML
ReplyDeleteJust a hunch.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo, someone cares about fairness and they are TFML? Don't be so trite. If Legally Unbound is right, we should be concerned.
ReplyDelete@ 3:42
ReplyDelete2:32 here ... I was not making my guess based upon her "caring about fairness," I was making it based upon her style of writing/ranting and her habit of not breaking up paragraphs.
But I could be wrong.
what's TFML?
ReplyDelete@ 6:58
ReplyDeletehttp://wildwildlaw.blogspot.com/2009/03/ode-to-terry-figliuzzi-mosley-lady.html
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.lvrj.com/news/41554542.html
ReplyDeleteI do believe, that within the next few months, we will be reading more from John L. Smith.