466 B.R. 542
M.D. Ala.2012Background
- Parker appeals district court orders affirming sanctions and permanent disbarment by the bankruptcy judge for misconduct in multiple cases.
- Jacobs, the bankruptcy administrator, sought sanctions under Rule 9011(b)(3) and 11 U.S.C. § 526(a)(2).
- The bankruptcy judge found numerous false filings, misrepresentations, and filing-fee violations across Parker's own Chapter 7 case and cases he represented.
- Notable prior sanctions include a Porterfield case injunction prohibiting Parker from filing bankruptcy cases for 120 days and a Richardson case finding mismanagement of funds.
- Parker missed the April 7, 2011 sanctions hearing due to illness; he later attended a June 1, 2011 vacate hearing and conceded incompetence in bankruptcy practice.
- The court affirmed the sanctions, holding permanent disbarment was appropriate after considering the totality of misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to sanction Parker | Parker argues the court lacked authority for permanent disbarment. | Bankruptcy court had Rule 9011, § 526(a)(5), and inherent authority to sanction. | Yes; court had authority to sanction, including permanent disbarment. |
| Sufficiency of findings for 9011/526 violations | Findings misstate facts and rely on unfounded assertions. | Record shows widespread, intentional misinformation and fee violations across cases. | Findings sufficient to support sanctions under Rule 9011(b)(3) and § 526(a)(2)/(a)(5). |
| Disbarment as appropriate sanction | Disbarment was too harsh given circumstances (e.g., illness). | Totality of misconduct demonstrated lack of competency and ethics; disbarment warranted. | Disbarment appropriate and within court’s discretion. |
| Impact of Parker's absence at the April 7 hearing | Absence alone should not justify harsh sanction. | Absence reflected professional courtesy and was part of broader misconduct. | Holistic record supports sanction beyond mere absence. |
| Waiver of challenges on appeal | Challenges were preserved for review. | Parker waived certain arguments by failing to raise them below. | Waived arguments are not reviewed; court affirmed on remaining grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Evergreen See., Ltd., 570 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir.2009) (inherent power to sanction attorneys; broader than rule-based sanctions)
- In re Evans, 801 F.2d 703 (4th Cir.1986) (inherent authority to disbar or suspend lawyers from practice)
- In re Snyder, 472 U.S. 634 (1985) (recognition of inherent power to discipline lawyers)
- In re Mroz, 65 F.3d 1567 (11th Cir.1995) (inherent power to sanction for misconduct; interstices of rule-based sanctions)
- In re Nguyen, 447 B.R. 268 (9th Cir.BAP 2011) (bankruptcy courts may sanction including disbarment under Rule 9011 and § 526)
- In re Brooks-Hamilton, 400 B.R. 238 (9th Cir.BAP 2009) (authority to suspend and disbar in bankruptcy context)
- In re Sunshine Jr. Stores, Inc., 456 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir.2006) (broader range of conduct sanctionable to enforce court orders)