Just signed up for PACER and...

[ColoradoBell]

note that slimy X has filed an objection to confirmation of my plan. Can't read it though because there is a 'deficiency' that he has 3 court days (I assume monday-friday are court days) to cure.

Well, I assumed he would object, but maybe not so fast (before the creditors meeting). Might as well deal with it up front I guess.

There is also a little problem...I contacted X's lawyer about representing me back in January. I sent him considerable documents to support my case; he called me to say that he didn't think I had a case, that I couldn't take the full homestead exemption, and that my case belonged in family court....all after having been in consult with X about representing X if I should file. Hmmmmm....this surely constitutes a conflict of interest, no?

[justbroke]

Can't tell you. That's why one should never share lawyers with a spouse on any matter.

[ColoradoBell]

Oh, I think I wasn't clear.
When I was shopping for a BK attorney, the first attorney or so that I contacted said that I shouldn't file. It turns out that this is the attorney that my X hired to represent him if I filed BK....and it appears that they had talked BEFORE I contacted him about my hiring him. Certainly, the attorney should have divulged that he had been in contact with X. Instead, he requested that I send him numerous documentation aobut the case after which he csalled me and essentially tried to talk me out of filing.

Not sure what you meant about spouses...X has been an X since 2003.

HHM?????? Any statutes re conflict of interest in BK representation?

[justbroke]

The attorney probably should have mentioned a conflict, but maybe he didn't know that you were the former spouse of his client? Just because he talked to your ex, doesn't make the attorney bound to attorney-client privilege because none existed at the time. I don't see any conflict if your ex did nothing more than "consult" with a few attorneys, and this just happened to be one.

The fact that he ended up retaining the attorney would have then created the attorney-client privilege and the conflict.

I just don't know other than that. It would certainly have been nice for him to mention it, but he was under no obligation to represent either of you.

[ColoradoBell]

Don't know nutting bout bk law, but in family law...if he'd spoken with X, then even if he hadn't been retained, when I contacted him he would have had to disclose the 'talk' and declined to discuss the case with me. He certainly couldn't have asked me to ssend him private disclosures and then attempted to talk me out of filing.

My attorney advised him of a possible conflict. After reading the nastiness and outright lies in his objection to my plan, I think my attonrey might have to motion the court re concerns.

[justbroke]

If you think there's an issue and the attorney actually violated some ethics rules, you'll need to figure out how to proceed.

[LadyInTheRed]

An attorney does not need to be retained by a prospective client to be bound by confidentiality laws.

Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/co/code/CO_CODE.HTM#Rule_1.18

Rule 1.18 Duties to Prospective Client
(a) A person who discusses with a lawyer the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client.

(b) Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has had discussions with a prospective client shall not use or reveal information learned in the consultation, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to information of a former client.
(c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b) shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to the prospective client, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d).

(d) When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in paragraph (c), representation is permissible if:

(1) both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing; or

(2) the lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client; and

(i) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and

(ii) written notice is promptly given to the prospective client.

If the attorney used information you gave him that your ex would not otherwise have had access to, make sure your attorney knows that. Even if the attorney is not disqualified from representing your husband, the judge may disallow any evidence that was available only because you gave it to that attorney during your consultation.

[ColoradoBell]

Thanks Lady in Red!
EVery little bit helps.
I'm copying your post and sending it to my attorney poste haste!

[justbroke]

Cool stuff Lady.