Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-1881
In Re:
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-cv-00696-BO)
Submitted:
Decided:
June 9, 2015
Robert Lewis, Jr., LEWIS LAW FIRM, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellant.
Brian
C.
Behr,
OFFICE
OF
THE
BANKRUPTCY
ADMINISTRATOR,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina;
James
Nicholas C. Brown, HOWARD, STALLINGS, FROM &
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
B.
Angell,
HUTSON, PA,
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lewis, Jr., appeals from the district courts order
affirming the order of the bankruptcy court partially suspending
him
from
practicing
in
the
bankruptcy
court,
ordering
the
bar
privileges
after
an
additional
term
and
upon
Lewis
We affirm.
the
debtors
bankruptcy
schedules
and
between
the
After
violating
bankruptcy
the
cases.
requirement
The
of
BA
full
also
disclosure
asserted
of
fees
numerous
in
other
the
prepetition
debtor,
civil
purportedly
litigation
toward
of
which
attorneys
the
fees
debtor
for
denied
documents for
filed
the
documents
debtor;
that
and
failing
contain
an
to
maintain
original
copies
signature.
of
The
bankruptcy
cases
on
behalf
of
clients
in
the
Bankruptcy
2013.
With
respect
to
existing
clients,
Lewis
was
he
was
the
attorney
of
record
and
disclosing
all
court
additionally
ruled
that
Lewis
reinstatement
to
requirements
sanctions
order
would
imposed
on
continue
Lewis
for
all
in
new
the
original
bankruptcy
cases
filed by Lewis.
Lewis
appealed
reinstatement order.
courts
rulings.
challenging
the
from
the
sanctions
order
and
from
the
authority
noted
of
the
his
appeal
to
bankruptcy
this
court
court,
to
order
the
appeal
reinstatement
from
the
order
sanctions
in
order
deciding
and
the
erred
by
issues
in
the
affirming
the
courts
to
discipline
attorneys
who
appear
before
it.
This inherent
(1985).
Bankruptcy
Additionally,
the
Code
authorizes
the
necessary
[Title
11]
or
or
appropriate
to
prevent
to
an
carry
abuse
out
of
the
provisions
process.
11
of
U.S.C.
105(a) (2012); see In re Walters, 868 F.2d 665, 669 (4th Cir.
1989) (upholding under 11 U.S.C. 105(a), contempt sanctions
based
on
attorneys
failure
to
disclose
fees,
disgorge
to
deny
attorneys
and
others
the
privilege
of
2594
(2011),
bankruptcy
courts
lack
authority
over
core
bankruptcy
matter
against
a
a
state-law
creditor
counterclaim
who
had
was
law,
in
the
no
way
Court
from
debtor
consented
Id. at 2620.
derived
Supreme
not
by
or
to
the
Because the
dependent
determined
in
that
upon
the
Id. at 2618.
The basis
bankruptcy
jurisdiction
voluntarily
attorney
court.
over
this
presented
and
The
officer
bankruptcy
matter
based
himself
in
of
court,
the
on
the
court
the
clearly
fact
bankruptcy
and
that
court
because,
had
Lewis
as
unlike
an
the
arose
proceeding.
from,
and
were
dependent
upon,
the
bankruptcy
and
were
imposed
in
violation
of
his
due
process
rights.
We disagree.
imposed
is
to
compliance
with
court
order
Id.
or
to
Suspension
We conclude that
the
sanctions
imposed
on
Lewis
were
within
the
bankruptcy
partially
bankruptcy
fees,
court,
imposing
suspending
requiring
monetary
him
the
from
practicing
disgorgement
sanction,
and
of
in
unauthorized
conditioning
the
his
See Bagwell,
also
do
not
think
the
district
court
erred
in
its
discretion
in
the
district
courts
consideration
of
the
n.*
(10th
noncompliant
opposing
briefs
party
is
Cir.
at
not
(allowing
consideration
discretion,
prejudiced);
Price
v.
provided
Digital
of
that
Equip.
the
bankruptcy
courts
ruling
where
the
bankruptcy
Gale Co., 385 F.3d 820, 835 (4th Cir. 2004) (on appeal from
bankruptcy
courts
ruling,
failure
to
raise
argument
before
sum,
we
find
no
reversible
district
courts
order.
We
error
by
either
the
Accordingly, we affirm
dispense
with
oral
argument