A Glitch Leads To A Reprimand

A reprimand was imposed by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for mishandling two matters

The first matter involved a married couple who in 2011 retained the respondent to prepare and file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition with the United States Bankruptcy Court. On May 2, 2011, the respondent filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, together with a Chapter 13 plan.

The respondent used the computer software program titled “Best Case Bankruptcy” in order to prepare the couple’s bankruptcy petition, schedules and plan. The respondent was aware that miscalculations could occur while using Best Case, but he failed to ensure that the totals he entered on the plan were correctly calculated. The respondent’s failure to review the calculations on the plan resulted in an unfeasible plan.

Between May 2, 2011, and August 14, 2013, the court dismissed the couple’s bankruptcy case four times due to the respondent’s failure to timely comply with the court’s orders and his failure to correctly calculate a feasible plan, despite the bankruptcy trustee’s attempts to explain to the respondent the steps he needed to take to adjust the plan and make it feasible. On August 29, 2013, the deputy clerk notified all parties that the court had entered an order dismissing the bankruptcy on August 14, 2013. Over the next several months the respondent took no meaningful action to reinstate the petition. During the summer of 2013, the couple attempted to contact the respondent by telephone and office visits, but the respondent failed to respond to their requests for information on the case. On December 9, 2013, the trustee filed her final report and account.

On December 12, 2013, the respondent filed a motion to vacate the August 14, 2013, order of dismissal. In his motion, the respondent took responsibility for failing to file an acceptable amended plan. On December 18, 2013, the court denied the respondent’s motion to vacate the order of dismissal. On January 7, 2014, the trustee filed her final report and account. After January 7, 2014, the respondent failed to advise the couple that they could refile their bankruptcy petition.

The second matter involved visitation rights. (Mike Frisch)