J.J. Rissell, Allentown PA, Trust v. Spiro Marchelos, 976 F.3d 1233

The bankruptcy court disqualified the law firm Moffa & Breuer (and attorney John Moffa) from representing the J.J. Rissell Trust because the Trust was a 50% shareholder created to ensure the firm’s fee payment, creating a conflict with the firm’s simultaneous representation of the debtor.
Despite disqualification, Stephen Breuer of Moffa & Breuer filed notices of appeal purporting to represent the Trust; John Moffa also filed pro se bankruptcy-court papers as trustee and proposed a competing reorganization plan that would benefit him and his firm.
The bankruptcy court concluded the firm’s representation of a shareholder in which it had a business interest conflicted with its representation of the debtor and ordered disqualification.
The appeals court examined whether notices of appeal filed by disqualified counsel (and pro se filings by a disqualified trustee) could be treated as valid notwithstanding Rule 3(c) defects.
The Eleventh Circuit held that because the Trust is an artificial entity that can act only through authorized agents or counsel, and no authorized agent filed the notices, the notices of appeal were nullities and the appeals were dismissed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of notices of appeal filed by disqualified counsel	Breuer: technical defects should be excused; intent to appeal was clear	Appellees: notices were filed by disqualified counsel and thus invalid	Notices invalid; appeals dismissed
Can a trustee/nonlawyer appear pro se for a trust	Moffa: his pro se filings show the Trust intended to appeal	Appellees: a trustee who is not authorized counsel cannot represent a trust in court	Nonlawyer trustee cannot appear pro se; Moffa’s filings not evidence of intent
Whether a defective notice may be excused under the "objectively clear" standard	Breuer: precedents excusing defective notices (Foman/Holloman) apply	Appellees: standard doesn’t apply when the purported filer lacked authority to represent the entity	Objective‑clarity exception not available where no authorized agent filed notice
Disqualification due to conflict of interest	Moffa & Breuer: (implicitly) should be allowed to represent related interests	Appellees: firm had business interest in shareholder trust creating conflict	Bankruptcy court properly disqualified the firm due to conflict

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (appeal should not be dismissed for mere technicalities in some circumstances)
Holloman v. Mail-Well Corp., 443 F.3d 832 (11th Cir. 2006) (defective notice may be adequate when intent to appeal is objectively clear)
KH Outdoor, LLC v. City of Trussville, 465 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 2006) (excusing a defective notice that failed to designate the order appealed)
PlayNation Play Sys., Inc. v. Velex Corp., 939 F.3d 1205 (11th Cir. 2019) (excusing defective notice that failed to specify parties when intent was clear)
Palazzo v. Gulf Oil Corp., 764 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1985) (artificial entities cannot appear pro se and must be represented by counsel)
Soliman v. Ebasco Servs. Inc., 822 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1987) (decision to appeal belongs exclusively to the client)
Knoefler v. United Bank of Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347 (8th Cir. 1994) (nonlawyer trustee has no right to represent an entity pro se)
C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1987) (entities cannot appear through nonlawyer representatives)
United States v. El-Mezain, 664 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2011) (appeal taken on behalf of an entity by someone without authority should be dismissed)