In re Spickelmier
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada
469 B.R. 903 (2012)
- Written by Ryan Hill, JD
Facts
Dr. Spickelmier (plaintiff) was a debtor who was represented by the law firm of Barry Levinson & Associates (Levinson firm). The attorneys for the Levinson firm first filed a petition for a bankruptcy chapter for which Dr. Spickelmier was ineligible. The Levinson firm then negotiated a conversion to a chapter for which Spickelmier was eligible, but the Levinson firm failed to comply with the terms of the conversion, and Spickelmier’s case was dismissed. The Levinson firm filed a motion for reconsideration but failed to appear at the hearing on that motion. The Levinson firm then moved for an order shortening time, but the motion was identical to an earlier order the court had already denied. The court issued an order to show cause regarding these filings and put the firm on notice that disgorgement of attorneys’ fees paid by Spickelmier was one of the sanctions that the court might impose. A lawyer with the Levinson firm, Mondejar, appeared late to the hearing on the order to show cause. Mondejar was utterly unprepared to participate in the hearing and totally unable to present any explanation or justification for the Levinson firm’s repeated failures to represent Dr. Spickelmier adequately.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Markell, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.