In Re Walker
In Re Walker
Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on April 6, 2010, states
that the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on respondent creditor,
other parties in interest, and Office of the United States Trustee.
The court notes that the moving party filed the declaration and exhibits in
this matter as one document. This is not the practice in the Bankruptcy Court.
“Motions, notices, objections, responses, replies, declarations, affidavits,
other documentary evidence, memoranda of points and authorities, other
supporting documents, proofs of service, and related pleadings shall be filed
as separate documents.” Revised Guidelines for the Preparation of Documents,
¶(3)(a). Counsel is reminded of the court’s expectation that documents filed
with this court comply with the Revised Guidelines for the Preparation of
Documents in Appendix II of the Local Rules and that attorneys practicing in
federal court comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.
NOTICE
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE GUIDELINES AND
FILING PLEADINGS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SHALL RESULT
IN THE MOTION BEING SUMMARILY DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Tentative Ruling: This Objection to a Proof of Claim has been set for hearing
on the notice required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1). The failure of
the Trustee and the respondent creditor to file written opposition at least 14
days prior to the hearing as required by Local Bankruptcy Rule 3007-1(c)(1)(I)
is considered as consent to the granting of the motion. Cf. Ghazali v. Moran,
46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995).
The Proof of Claim at issue, listed as claim number 5 on the court’s official
claims registry, asserts a $1,320,650.52 secured claim. The Debtor objects to
the Claim on the basis that the claimant, Citibank, N.A., did not provided any
evidence that Citibank has the authority to bring the claim, as required by
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3001(c), rendering the claim facially
defective.
The court’s review of the claim shows that the Deed of Trust purports to have
been assigned to Citibank, N.A. by Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. as nominee for Bayrock Mortgage Corporation on March 5, 2010. (Proof of
Claim No. 5 p.36-37, Mar. 19, 2010.) Debtor contends that this does not
establish that Citibank is the owner of the underling promissory note since the
assignor, Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (“MERS”), had no
interest in the note to transfer. Debtors loan was originated by Bayrock
Mortgage Corporation and no evidence of the current owner of the promissory
note is attached to the proof of claim. It is well established law in the
Ninth Circuit that the assignment of a trust deed does not assign the
underlying promissory note and right to be paid, and that the security interest
is incident of the debt. 4 WITKIN SUMMARY OF CALIFORNIA LAW , SECURED TRANSACTIONS IN REAL
PROPERTY §105 (10th ed).
MERS acted only as a “nominee” for Bayrock Mortgage under the Deed of Trust.
Since no evidence has been offered that the promissory note has been
transferred, MERS could only transfer what ever interest it had in the Deed of
Trust. However, the promissory note and the Deed of Trust are inseparable.
“The note and the mortgage are inseparable; the former as essential, the later
as an incident. An assignment of the note carries the mortgage with it, while
an assignment of the latter alone is a nullity.” Carpenter v. Longan, 83 U.S.
271, 274 (1872); accord Henley v. Hotaling, 41 Cal. 22, 28 (1871); Seidell v.
Tuxedo Land Co., 216 Cal. 165, 170 (1932); Cal. Civ. Code §2936. Therefore,
if on party receives the note an another receives the deed of trust, the holder
of the note prevails regardless of the order in which the interests were
transferred. Adler v. Sargent, 109 Cal. 42, 49-50 (1895).
Since MERS did not own the underling note, it could not transfer the beneficial
interest of the Deed of Trust to another. Any attempt to transfer the
beneficial interest of a trust deed with out ownership of the underlying note
is void under California law. Therefore Citibank has not established that it
is entitled to assert a claim in this case.
MULTIPLE CLAIMS TO THE BENEFICIAL INTEREST IN THE DEED OF TRUST AND OWNERSHIP
OF PROMISSORY NOTE SECURED THEREBY
Debtor also points out that four separate entities have claimed beneficial
ownership of the deed of trust. (Obj. to Claim 3-5, Apr. 6, 2010.) The true
owner of the underling promissory note needs to step forward to settle the
cloud that has been created surrounding the relevant parties rights and
interests under the trust deed.
DECISION
The court disallowing the proof of claim does not alter or modify the trust
deed or the fact that someone has an interest in the property which can be
subject thereto. The order disallowing the proof of claim shall expressly so
provide.
The court shall issue a minute order consistent with this ruling.
Tentative Ruling: The Order to Show Cause was issued due to the Failure to
attend the scheduled Meeting of Creditors as required by 11 U.S.C. §343. The
court’s docket reflects that the Meeting of Creditors has not been concluded.
The court’s tentative decision is to continue the hearing on the Order to Show
Cause to June 24, 2010, at 10:30 a.m. to permit the Debtor to attend the
continued Meeting of Creditors on June 10, 2010.
Debtor files a reply indicating that she has been incapacitated by a medical
condition since January 20, 2010. However, the court’s docket reflects that
Debtor appeared at the March 30, 2010, Meeting of Creditors, but missed the
April 8 and April 27, 2010, meetings. This directly contradicts the statements
provided by the Debtor.
Debtor also argues that the court could administer the case without her
presence under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1016. Rule 1016 provides
that the death or incompetency of the debtor shall not abate a case under
Chapter 7. Here, however, Debtor failed to show that her hospitalization and
temporary incapacitation rendered her incompetent under California law. Cf. In
re Moss, 239 B.R. 537 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. 1999). Moreover, even if the Debtor
were of limited competence, attendance at the Meeting of Creditors is required.
11 U.S.C. §343; 9-1016 Collier on Bankruptcy P 1016.02 (Lexis 2010).
However, given Debtor’s medical condition, the court will continue this hearing
to June 24, 2010 at 10:30 a.m. to permit the Debtor to attend the continued
Meeting of Creditors on June 10, 2010.
The court shall issue a minute order consistent with this ruling.
Final Ruling: The Order to Show Cause was issued due to the Debtors’ failure
to file Form 22A, the Chapter 7 Means Test. The court’s docket reflects that
the Means Test was filed on April 19, 2010.
The documents having been filed, the Order to Show Cause is discharged.
The court shall issue a minute order consistent with this ruling.
Proper Notice Provided. The Proof of Service filed on April 15, 2010, and
supplemented on April 21, 2010, to correct the time of the hearing, states that
the Motion and supporting pleadings were served on Debtor, Debtor’s Attorney,
Chapter 7 Trustee, and other parties in interest.
The Chapter 7 Trustee seeks an order requiring the return of Debtor’s $5,000.00
pre-petition payment to her attorney as an excessive fee for the Chapter 7
bankruptcy case. The case was originally filed as a Chapter 13 case, and at
the time of filing the Statement of Financial Affairs, Chapter 13 Plan,
Schedules I and J, and From 22C (Means Test) were not filed with the court.
These required pleadings were filed on April 8, 2010, in conjunction with the
Debtor’s election to convert this case to one under Chapter 7.
When the Debtor filed bankruptcy she was operating the business known as Sub
Express, located at 4301 Truxel Road, Sacramento, California. The Movant
directs the court to the Debtor’s Schedules I and J in this case, showing
current income of $7,789.51 a month and current expenses of $10,460.53, for a
monthly net loss of $2,671.02.
The Trustee alleges that much of the work being done post-petition for the
Debtor was legal work for her to retain her business through the Chapter 7
case, and not for prosecution of a Chapter 13 Plan.
The Trustee, as successor to the Debtor, asserts the right to cancel any pre-
petition contract of the Debtor, including that with her counsel for services
relating to the $5,000.00 retainer which counsel for the Debtor received. 11
U.S.C. §329(b)(1)(A). The Trustee also asserts the right to recover the
The Trustee argues that it was clear that the present bankruptcy proceeds had
to result in a Chapter 7, that the fees received by counsel for the Debtor are
well in excess of reasonable fees for a Chapter 7 case, and that counsel for
the Debtor should disgorge the entire $5,000.00 retainer paid to him.
The Debtor has filed an opposition to the Motion and describes the legal
services and strategy as follows:
— Debtor filed the Chapter 13 case to delay a pending foreclosure, and filed
under Chapter 13 because she could delay the foreclosure and stay in possession
of her home longer than if she started with a Chapter 7 filing.
— The Debtor’s intake appointment occurred on March 10, 2010, and the
bankruptcy was filed on March 11, 2010, less than one-hour before the scheduled
foreclosure sale.
— On March 29, 2010, counsel for the Debtor and the Debtor met for
approximately 2 hours.
— After April 8, 2010, counsel for the Debtor addressed post-Chapter 7 issues
concerning the Debtor retaining her business and having the Trustee abandon the
business assets to the Debtor. On April 29, 2010, the abandonment was approved
by the court. (The court notes that counsel for the Trustee appeared at the
hearing to state that the Trustee had no opposition to the requested
abandonment).
The Trustee and Debtor expend time and argument over the strategy and tactics
of the Debtor in trying to maintain her business and get it abandoned by the
Chapter 13 Trustee. The court appreciates that there is an intricate ballet
which occurs in Chapter 7 cases in which the debtor is a sole proprietor and
has a business of no intrinsic value for a trustee. This ballet requires
debtor’s counsel to move quickly to protect the interests of his or her client,
as well as to move the case forward so as not to expose the Chapter 7 trustee
to liability for an operating business in the Chapter 7 Estate which is not
under the Trustee’s control.
Though counsel for the Debtor generates a contract with a debtor client stating
that the $5,000.00 retainer is non-refundable, fees to be paid counsel for
legal services provided to a debtor are subject to review and approval by this
court. As stated by the Trustee, and reflected in various provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code, the financial dealings between a debtor and his/her counsel
are subject to close review by the bankruptcy court, even in the situation
where the transaction may not be subject to review under state law. An example
is 11 U.S.C. §502(b)(4) which subjects any claim of an attorney for the debtor
subject to disallowance if it exceeds the reasonable value of the services, as
a matter of bankruptcy law. An attorney cannot insulate himself from court
review or divert pre-petition assets of the debtor by characterizing them as
non-refundable fees paid to the attorney for future services.
Counsel is entitled to paid the reasonable fees for filing the bankruptcy case
and work done up to the time of conversion from the pre-petition retainer.
From the pleadings filed, one method could be for the court to identified the
work done by counsel for the Debtor for which fees may be allowed and allocate
reasonable time. By this method the court could conclude that the following
time could reasonably be used to compute the reasonable fees in this case:
This represents 8.40 hours of time. If the court accepts an hourly rate of
$365 an hour, that would equate to $3,066.00, which may not be unreasonable in
handling a more complicated business Chapter 7 case.
However, the court does not conclude that a strict hours multiplied by
counsel’s hourly rate is appropriate in this case. First, the court notes that
not all of the time to be billed the client is for counsel, but includes time
for counsel’s support staff. The court also notes that the parties have,
unfortunately, spent time (and money) arguing irrelevant points and making
personal attacks against the other. Both parties have failed to provide the
The court finds that $2,800 represents reasonable fees, inclusive of all costs
and expenses, in this case that counsel for the Debtor should reasonably be
expect to be paid from the $5,000.00 retainer received to handle the Chapter
13 case through confirmation. These reasonable fees are determined based upon
a reasonable hourly rate, determined to be $350 an hour multiplied by 8 hours
in this case.
Counsel for the Debtor cannot reasonably believe that he should be paid for
post-Chapter 7 conversion work done for the Debtor in retaining her business.
Such post-Chapter 7 work is paid for by the Debtor from her post-Chapter 7
assets. When the case was filed the retainer remained property of the Estate,
subject to the attorneys’ lien for fees as determined reasonable by the court.
For the convenience of the parties and the court, the following excerpts from
the General Order currently governing Chapter 13 cases and the Guideline for
Attorneys’ Fees in Chapter 13 Cases applicable to the instant case are as
follows (highlights added by court):
The following are Guidelines for the circumstances under which the
court will, as part of the chapter 13 plan confirmation process,
approve fees of attorneys representing chapter 13 debtors.
The court first notes that if “disgorgement” was proper, a requirement that
it be reported to the State Bar or that such reporting could have a negative
consequence to counsel is not a basis for not following proper bankruptcy
law and debtor counsel receiving payment of the reasonable fees to which he
Attached to this decision are copies of the State Bar Standards For
Certification and Recertification in Bankruptcy Law and Rules Governing the
State Bar of California Program for Certifying Legal Specialists, which the
court obtained from the California State Bar Web Page. The only reference
to amounts over $1,000.00 being reported to the State Bar by a legal
specialist are for sanctions (other than discovery) which are entered
against the specialist. Rules Governing The State Bar of California Program
for Certifying Legal Specialists, Section 9.3.6.
The court shall issue a minute order consistent with this ruling.
The Standards must be read in conjunction with the Rules Governing the State Bar of California Program for
Certifying Legal Specialists, which govern the Program requirements.
1.0 DEFINITION
Bankruptcy law is the practice of law under the United States Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. §101, et seq.) ("Code").
It includes, but is not limited to, representation of debtors, creditors, trustees, committees, and all other interested
parties under the Code.
An applicant must demonstrate that, within the five years immediately preceding submission of the written
application, he or she has been substantially involved in the practice of bankruptcy law. Substantial involvement in
the area of bankruptcy law would be shown if he or she had principal responsibility for representation of, and has
personally appeared on behalf of, a client or clients in 100 or more chapter 7, 11, 12, or 13 bankruptcy cases,
contested matters, and/or adversary proceedings under the Code.
An applicant must show that, within the three years immediately preceding the application for certification, he or she
has completed not less than 45 hours of approved educational activities relevant to bankruptcy law.
4.1 An applicant shall submit the names and mailing ad-dresses of the following:
4.1.1 Three lawyers who practice in the same geographic area as the applicant, and one judge of the United
States Bankruptcy Court or District Court, chosen by the applicant before whom the applicant has
appeared as an advocate in bankruptcy proceedings within the five years immediately preceding
application; and
4.1.2 Two different opposing counsel in two contested or adversary proceedings con-ducted by the
applicant within the five years immediately preceding application, if any; and
4.1.3 One bankruptcy trustee whom the applicant has represented in a bankruptcy proceeding within the
five years immediately preceding the application; or one bankruptcy trustee or one trustee's attorney
in a case in which the applicant represented the debtor within the five years immediately preceding
application.
4.3 References may be asked to submit the names of additional references familiar with the applicant's
proficiency.
An applicant for recertification must show that, during the current five-year certification period, he or she has had
direct and substantial participation in the practice of bankruptcy law. Such showing shall be made by compliance
with the requirements set forth in section 2.0 or, at the discretion of the Commission, by sworn statement that the
applicant has engaged in the practice of bankruptcy law substantially to the same extent as described in the
application for original certification.
An applicant for recertification must show that, during the current five-year certification period, he or she has
completed not less than 60 hours of approved educational activities relevant to bankruptcy law specialists.
An applicant for recertification shall demonstrate proficiency in bankruptcy law through independent inquiry and
review in the same manner as set forth in section 4.0 for certification.
1.0 Purpose
3.1.1 On a form provided by the State Bar;
The purpose of the Rules Governing the State Bar of
California Program for Certifying Legal Specialists is 3.1.2 At the designated office of the State Bar;
to establish a program for certifying specialists in
specified areas of law, to identify to the public 3.1.3 In a timely manner;
attorneys who have demonstrated proficiency in the
specialty fields and to encourage attorney competence. 3.1.4 With all the information requested on the
form;
All applications for certification and recertification All applications for certification and recertification
must be submitted: may be withdrawn in writing by the applicant at any
6.2.4 Self-verified listening to and/or viewing of, a 7.2.1 Approval may be extended in advance to a
complete audio or audio/visual reproduction of an continuing education provider for not more than three
approved program segment and submission of an years for all educational activities presented by the
affidavit certifying thereto. Such tapes must be provider which the provider certifies conform to the
approved for educational credit and listened to or requirements of section 7.3.
viewed within the time period for which they were
approved. 7.2.2 The provider shall demonstrate that, during the
two years immediately preceding its application, the
6.2.5 Self-verified participation in other approved provider has sponsored a minimum of four separate
audiovisual activities, including interactive video and different activities, not including repeated
instruction and activities electronically transmitted presentations, that were approved for legal speciali-
from another location, such as online education. zation credit.
7.4 Requirements for All Providers 7.6 Withdrawal or Denial of Multiple Activity
Provider or Educational Activity
7.4.1 Providers of approved educational activities
shall agree to all of the requirements set out in rule Approval may be withdrawn or denied for reasons
3.502 of Title 3, Division 5, of the Rules of the State including, but not limited to, a determination that the
Bar of California, including any amendments thereto, content of an activity does not comply with the
except that the provider of approved legal requirements of section 7.3 or the provider does not
specialization educational activities shall maintain comply with the requirements of section 7.4.
attendance records for a period of six years, the Approval of an educational activity or Multiple
certificate of attendance shall state the specialty area, Activity Provider must be withdrawn or denied by a
including sub-areas, if applicable, for which credit is majority of the members of the appropriate
approved, and promotional materials shall include the Commission.
area(s) of specialty and the number of hours in each
specialty area, including sub-areas, if applicable, for 7.7 Renewal of Multiple Activity Provider
which credit is being offered. Approval
7.4.2 Promotional materials, if any, must contain Subject to the requirements of section 7.4, the
accurate information as to whether the educational approval of Multiple Activity Provider may be
activity is approved for legal specialization credit or renewed for a period of time specified by the
whether approval is pending. appropriate Commission for all of the educational
activities referred to in sections 6.1 and 6.2.4
7.4.3 In order to ensure quality, each activity shall be presented by such provider which it certifies conform
subject to audit by the Board and the Commission to section 7.3. The renewal of a Multiple Activity
without cost. Provider may be denied if the provider fails to comply
with any of the requirements of these Rules.
7.4.4 An educational activity shall not be advertised
in a manner which is misleading or misrepresentative 8.0 Written Examinations
in any way.
8.1 Purpose
7.5 Procedure for Approval of Individual
Educational Activities and Approval/Renewal of The purpose of the examination is to verify that an
applicant has a basic knowledge of the usual
Written examination grades shall be final in all cases, The appropriate Commission shall conduct an
except where the written examination is subject to independent inquiry and review of each applicant.
reappraisal by a Committee of Reappraisers appointed
by the appropriate Commission. In such cases, the 9.1 References
decision of the Committee of Reappraisers as to
whether the applicant has passed or failed shall be Each applicant shall be required to submit the names
final. of three attorneys or judges to serve as references who
are familiar with the tasks upon which the applicant
8.4 Inspection of Examination Books has relied to satisfy the task requirement, except where
An applicant who fails to pass the examination may, the number and type of references are set forth in the
within two months after the results have been individual specialty standards. Each reference shall be
announced, inspect his or her examination books in asked to submit the names of two additional
such manner and at such place as the Board may references familiar with the applicant’s proficiency.
designate. An applicant who passes the examination The Commission may seek additional references from
shall not be entitled to inspect his or her examination other persons familiar with the tasks described in the
books. individual standards. The references shall be sent a
questionnaire. The references shall not include any
8.5 Passing Grade attorney who is associated with the applicant,
including clients, relatives, current partners,
Except pursuant to sections 3.2 and 16.1, a passing associates, employers or employees of the applicant.
grade shall be valid for 36 months from the date of the
administration of the examination. 9.2 Minimum Number of Favorable References
8.6 Alternative to Written Examination An application shall not be acted upon until a
minimum of five favorable references have been
Subject to the provision of the following, alternative received, except Criminal Law, where a minimum of
requirements to the written examination shall be found eight favorable references are required for action. To
in the individual standards. be considered, the references must also be eligible
pursuant to the criteria set forth in section 9.1 above.
8.6.1 At any time within the two years following the The Commission may, in its discretion, act upon an
effective date of a new specialty, in lieu of passing a application that has been pending for longer than one
written examination, an applicant may verify basic year even if the minimum number of favorable
knowledge of the usual procedures and substantive references has not been received. In appropriate
law common to specialists in the field of law by instances of limitations on the applicant’s practice by
satisfying alternative requirements approved by the reason of geographical location, limited nature of
Board. This option is not available to an applicant practice, or similar reasons, the Commission may, in
who sits for the written examination. its discretion, reduce the number of references
required to a minimum of two persons. If, within 30
In determining whether or not an attorney conforms In the event that a recommendation of not qualified is
his or her conduct to the Rules of Professional being considered, the Advisory Commission or Board
Conduct, the Commission will make an independent shall request an oral interview with the applicant at a
assessment concerning how such conduct bears on an time and place it designates. The oral interview
attorney’s qualification to obtain or maintain should be held only after the Advisory Commission or
certification. Board receives a substantial part of the relevant
information and should allow sufficient time prior to
12.1 Required Period of Law Practice 12.3.2 Each applicant for recertification shall
maintain records sufficient to prove compliance with
An applicant shall, at the time of recertification, be an the educational requirements for recertification for at
active member of the State Bar of California and shall least one year from the date the Board acts to recertify
have been engaged in the practice of law during the the applicant. The applicant shall provide such
previous five years in the area in which recertification records to the Board as the Board may require.
is sought for at least 25% of the time the applicant has 12.3.3 Educational activities that satisfy the
spent in occupational endeavors. individual standards which are engaged in within the
last six months of certification period and are in
12.2 Task Requirements excess of the number of educational activities
necessary for recertification may be applied to the
12.2.1 An applicant must show that during the next certification period.
current certification period he or she engaged in the
practice of the law in the specialty field in which 12.4 Alternative to Educational Requirements
recertification is sought to the same extent as
demonstrated in the application for original In lieu of satisfying the educational requirements of
certification or as set forth in the individual standards. section 12.3, an applicant may sit for and pass the last
12.7.1 The Board may waive the five-year 13.4 The program for certification in that field is
recertification requirement in the event of judicial terminated.
service during the certification period. The
certification period will be tolled for the time during 14.0 Suspension and Revocation of Certification
the certification period that the certified specialist is
actually engaged in judicial service. The certified Certification or recertification may be suspended or
specialist must provide confirmation of the fact that he revoked for any of the following reasons:
or she continues to engage in judicial service when
requested to do so by the State Bar and must notify the 14.1 The certificate was issued contrary to these
State Bar when he or she ceases to be engaged in Rules or the Rules and Regulations of the State Bar of
judicial service. California;
12.7.2 For purposes of this section, a certified 14.2 The certified specialist made a material false
specialist is engaged in judicial service if he or she is representation or misstatement of material fact to the
serving as a judge of a court of record and therefore is Board;
not a member of the State Bar on active status
pursuant to Article VI, section 9 of the California 14.3 The certified specialist has been subject to final
Constitution, or has been granted a judicial service disciplinary action by the Supreme Court, the State
waiver of his or her annual State Bar membership fee, Bar Court, or any body authorized to impose
or is serving as an administrative law judge. professional discipline;
The applicant or the Board may request review of the A certified specialist shall, when identifying himself
State Bar Court’s decision pursuant to rule 301 of the or herself as such or when offering legal services
Rules of Procedure of the State Bar of California. pursuant to this program, refer to himself or herself
as certified by The State Bar of California Board of
15.10 Supreme Court Review Legal Specialization either by the use of text, the
An applicant and the Board may request review by program logo, or both.
the California Supreme Court of any State Bar action
pursuant to rule 9.13(d) of the California Rules of 18.0 Rights and Benefits of Certification Are
Court only after final action by the State Bar Court. Individual
15.11 Failure to Pay Fees All requirements for and all benefits to be derived
from certification as a certified specialist are
The procedure to suspend or revoke a certificate for individual and may not be fulfilled by or attributed
failure to pay required fees shall be governed by to the law firm of which the specialist may be a
sections 20.5 and 20.6 of these Rules. member.
“Applicant” as used in this section shall include the
certified specialist appealing the suspension or 19.0 No Limitation on Number of Specialty Areas
revocation of certification. in Which Members May be Certified
20.1 Application Fee for Certification 20.6 Request for Good Cause Waiver or
Reduction of Annual Fee or Extension of Time
The application fee, which includes exam for Payment
registration and certification, shall be set by the
Board of Governors. If an applicant who applied to Prior to revocation for non-payment of the annual
take the examination is unable to do so, the Board, fee, a certified specialist may request a good cause
at its discretion, may refund or credit as much of the waiver or reduction of the fee or an extension of
fee as it deems appropriate. The applicant must time for payment. The review shall be informal in
provide the Board with written notice of withdrawal. nature, and shall be limited to a determination of the
circumstances of nonpayment. Certification may be
20.2 Recertification Fee revoked, or upon good cause shown, the fee may be
waived or reduced or the time for payment may be
The fee for recertification shall be set by the Board extended.
of Governors and is due and payable upon filing of
the application for recertification. 20.7 Educational Program Fee
23.3.1 Upon a claim of breach of confidentiality, a 24.1.1 He or she is the current or former law partner
three-member special committee shall be appointed or associate of the applicant;
by the Board from among its members or the
members of the Commissions to investigate and 24.1.2 He or she, or the law firm or office with which
determine such claim. In the conduct of he or she is affiliated, represents the applicant;
investigations, the special committee may, among
other things, administer oaths and affirmations, 24.1.3 He or she, or the law firm or office with which
compel, by subpoena, the attendance of witnesses he or she is affiliated, is a party to pending litigation
and the production of books, papers and documents in which the applicant, or the law firm or office with
pertaining to the alleged breach of confidentiality. which the applicant is affiliated, is also a party or
Any claim of breach of confidentiality shall be represents a party to that litigation;
investigated fully, including but not limited to, the
confronting of the member of the Board or 24.1.4 He or she, or the law firm or office with which
Commission against whom the claim has been he or she is affiliated, represents a party in pending
made; and if the claim is found to have merit, a litigation in which the applicant, or the law firm or
report shall be made to the Board. The report shall office with which the applicant is affiliated, is a party;
include a recommendation as to whether the Board
shall request the Board of Governors to remove the 24.1.5 He or she or his or her spouse or registered
person(s) from the Board or Commission. The domestic partner is related to the applicant by
special committee shall also report the failure of any consanguinity or affinity within the third degree
person to cooperate in the investigation of the claim. according to the rules of civil law;
No person against whom a claim of breach of
confidentiality is brought shall serve on a special 24.1.6 He or she has any personal bias or prejudice
committee investigating said claim. concerning the applicant which would prevent him or
her from fairly evaluating all of the evidence and
information concerning the qualifications of that
applicant;
24.4 Disqualification