Attorney telling people about details of a case

[frogger]

Yes we do. To me, it all gets back to the part of the entire part of bk being public record except for the ssn. This is public record, in the common domain, therefore could be considered common knowledge.

[HHM]

No one is saying not do anything, certainly file a complaint with the state bar if you wish. But to the original question, there is no obvious violation of any particular rule.

Now, if you can make the case that the attorney was intentionally putting undue pressure to influence the outcome of a case, then maybe there is an issue. But, as Frogger points out, Bankruptcy is public domain, the information only puts pressure on you if you let it.

[johnnycakes]

Here's a thought...

Could the atty be considered a "third person" type collections agency?

Let's just say you file BK and include Chase as a creditor. Do the attys for Chase now have the right to call your neighbors and tell them you are a deadbeat and owe them money? I think you could come up with some FDCPA arguments there.

So here's the question - does a BK filing remove responsibilities under the FDCPA? I don't see how it does. I think any BK judge out there would flip if a creditor started calling friends and neighbors to "discuss" your financial situation.

If that is the case, the general public can say whatever they want about the filing - but creditors and their representatives still need to mind their P's and Q's.

I don't know if the above theory holds water or not, but I figured it would make for interesting conversation.

[tobee43]

to both my most respected bkforum buds, i'll agree to disagree on this one with both frogger and hhm.

while i understand ALL cases filed in the court do become public record, the details of those cases, other than what is in the exact written description of the filings, should be, in what may be perhaps perceived as tilted viewpoint, remain within the confines of the those documents and nothing more.

as hhm points out

Now, if you can make the case that the attorney was intentionally putting undue pressure to influence the outcome of a case, then maybe there is an issue. But, as Frogger points out, Bankruptcy is public domain, the information only puts pressure on you if you let it.

that's really up for interruption's of the court and could be argued...maybe not successfully, but, enough to put a few 'crumbs" in that atty's bed...or at the least teach them to be more respectful in the publics eye, as an officer of the court. and, maybe i'm a bit sensitive, since i hold the profession usually with such high regard.

[msm859]

msm859, i think if the behavior continued i would still give the state bar a call...whether, it's law or not...it's unbecoming to an officer of the court. and whether it's in the actual "legal" rules or not....even actually true statements being exchanged or NOT......i'm certain if one dug deep enough and researched long enough,....maybe in the illinois rules of professional conduct...or maybe one could also find a law defining and which would be applicable in the civil code sections containing the areas of i.e. harassment, slander...etc... or something to apply to the big mouth..

Truth is an absolute defense to slander. Thus, as said before if everything he is saying is true I don't believe there is any legal basis to get him to stop.

[tobee43]

agreed msm, however, if in Illinois there are certain rules of conduct to be followed by opposing atty's i just think the rules should be followed.

i was digging for a needle in a hay stack with the mention of "slander", since in some states the civil codes are different than others, in respect to certain actions and i was just suggesting MAYBE it could be slander.

the bottom line for me, is i just really feel for the OP's position. and, frankly, i would be upset if it happened to me.

and i'd still like to grab that opposing atty by the ear and just twist it a few times...

[tobee43]

Here's a thought...

Could the atty be considered a "third person" type collections agency?

Let's just say you file BK and include Chase as a creditor. Do the attys for Chase now have the right to call your neighbors and tell them you are a deadbeat and owe them money? I think you could come up with some FDCPA arguments there.

So here's the question - does a BK filing remove responsibilities under the FDCPA? I don't see how it does. I think any BK judge out there would flip if a creditor started calling friends and neighbors to "discuss" your financial situation.

If that is the case, the general public can say whatever they want about the filing - but creditors and their representatives still need to mind their P's and Q's.

I don't know if the above theory holds water or not, but I figured it would make for interesting conversation.

i thought about that as well.......could that atty be considered a third party...which would be considered an entire different set of rules. and the rules governing under the FTC apply???

but i think not since this firm represents a first party creditor???

it is interesting though!

[frogger]

to both my most respected bkforum buds, i'll agree to disagree on this one with both frogger and hhm.

Actually, I do not think that any of us are in disagreement here. While I do believe that what he is doing is not illegal, I do not believe that it is ethical.

I do think that everyone here thinks that the lawyer is a POS for his actions, legal or not.

[helpmeout]

Truth is an absolute defense to slander. Thus, as said before if everything he is saying is true I don't believe there is any legal basis to get him to stop.

While the attorney may be telling the truth, if the attorney persists, it's harassment. And there is a law about that.

[tobee43]

Actually, I do not think that any of us are in disagreement here. While I do believe that what he is doing is not illegal, I do not believe that it is ethical.

I do think that everyone here thinks that the lawyer is a POS for his actions, legal or not.

LOL!! it took me 20 minutes to figure out POS!!!!! now that's sad.

[BrokeinMD]

Hopefully OP will give us an update about whether he/she did anything and the outcome?

[tobee43]

yes, i do hope so as well.

[msm859]

While the attorney may be telling the truth, if the attorney persists, it's harassment. And there is a law about that.

According to the OP the attorney is telling his (the attorneys) friends about the OP's bankruptcy. That would not be harassment. If the attorney has 100 friends and each day he persists to tell one of them there is probably nothing the OP can do.

[tobee43]

According to the OP the attorney is telling his (the attorneys) friends about the OP's bankruptcy. That would not be harassment. If the attorney has 100 friends and each day he persists to tell one of them there is probably nothing the OP can do.

LOL!! i really wonder if all the atty's friends are, in fact atty's???