
Question: I represent a creditor who had sued an entity before it was put into receivership. The court has established a claims procedure, and the receiver has sent out claim forms. Can I sign the claim form on behalf of my client or is it better to have my client sign?
Answer: Receivership cases and bankruptcy cases often require creditors to file proofs of claim. Because it may be easier, quicker and cheaper, attorneys for creditors sometimes sign and file the proofs of claim. While this is explicitly allowed in bankruptcy cases under Bankruptcy Rule 3001(b), and there is no prohibition on counsel signing a proof of claim on behalf of his or her client in receivership cases, it is not a good idea.
A number of cases have held that the act of signing a proof of claim may make the attorney a fact witness and can result in a waiver of attorney-client and/or work product privileges. Most proofs of claim require the signer to declare under, penalty of perjury, that the statements made in the proof of claim are true and correct. In order to do so, the person signing the proof of claim must have knowledge of the facts set forth in the proof of claim. Because of that, the person signing the proof of claim may become a fact witness.
In In Re Duke Investments, Ltd., 545 B.R. 414 (Bankr. S.D. Texas 2011), the court wrote its opinion on this issue specifically to warn of problems that can arise when an attorney signs a proof of claim on behalf of the client. In the case, the debtor moved to disqualify an attorney who had signed a proof of claim on a creditor’s behalf, alleging he was a fact witness by doing so. While the court chose not to disqualify the attorney, because the court found that the attorney was not a necessary witness under Texas law, it concluded: “attorneys representing creditors in bankruptcy cases – ought to think twice before signing proofs of claim for their clients. There is no question that any attorney is allowed to do so, but the attorney puts himself at risk by becoming a fact witness.” Id. at 427. In another, unreported, bankruptcy, In Re Gonzalez, 2013 W.L. 2450925 (S. D. Texas 2013), the debtor sought to depose one of the creditors attorneys who objected to and refused to answer questions at the deposition asserting the attorney-client privilege. On a motion to compel, filed by the debtor, the court ruled that because the attorney signed the creditor’s proof of claim, that made him a fact witness and held that the attorney-client privilege was waived. See also In Re Vission, Inc., 2008 W.L. 2230741 *4, fn. 3 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 2008( (“By signing the affidavit, counsel runs the risk of becoming a fact witness, and any future hope of asserting privilege may disappear or counsel may be disqualified from representing a client.”).
Given these cases, the better practice is to have your client sign any proof of claim in a receivership or bankruptcy case.
This blog is intended to discuss current trends in receivership law and practice. It should not be construed as representing advice on specific, individual legal matters, but rather as an overview of the subject discussed. Your questions and comments are always welcome. Please do not hesitate to contact me at pdavidson@ecjlaw.com or (310) 281-6363 to further discuss this blog or to answer any questions.
- Senior Partner
Peter A. Davidson is a Partner in the Bankruptcy, Receivership and Creditors’ Rights Department.
Since 1977 Peter has represented receivers, plaintiffs and defendants in receivership actions in state and federal court and ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- SBA Releases Restaurant Revitalization Program Guidelines
- IRS Issues Guidance on Business Meal Deductions
- Ninth Circuit Dismisses “100% Natural” Chicken Advertising Case
- FDA Announces Actions on Leafy Green Safety
- California Announces Full Reopening on June 15
- Bad Faith Liability Can Arise Even Absent A Demand Within Policy Limits
- LA County Moves to Orange Tier Reopenings on April 5
- Plaintiffs Look To Finalize $13 Million Settlement In Added Sugar Consumer Class Action
- Employer Alert: California Labor Commissioner Issues New COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave FAQ and Required Poster
- SB 95: California Provides Supplemental Paid Sick Leave for COVID-19
Blogs
Contributors
Archives
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014