Cohen & Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher & Associates

Type

Dissent

Author

Andrew Jay Kleinfeld

Filed

April 25, 2003

Case

Cohen & Steinbrecher v. Steinbrecher & Associates

Case status

Decided

The first passage of the document, as extracted by the source provider.

KLEINFELD, Circuit Judge, dissenting. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that the settlement agreement between Cohen and Steinbrecher contemplated the fee-splitting arrangement with Gilbert, which was already in place when Cohen and Steinbrecher signed the settlement agreement. In so doing, the B.A.P. refers to the Bankruptcy Court’s “implicit finding” that Cohen had actual or constructive knowledge of the fee-splitting arrangement, including whether Steinbrecher had complied with California Rule of Professional Conduct 2-200 when he entered into the settlement agreement. The Bankruptcy Court made no actual findings of fact, and did not hold an evidentiary hearing to determine these critical issues of fact. *194 The parties presented conflicting evidence to the Bankruptcy Court as to what Cohen knew at the time of the settlement agreement. Steinbreeher submitted a declaration that he had discussed the fee-splitting arrangement in detail with Cohen, but Cohen submitted a declaration claiming that he had not been told about it at all and had never even heard of Gilbert’s firm. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed Cohen’s statement because it was “self-serving,” but this is not a justifica…

Source Extract supplied by CourtListener. Benchlight does not host the document — read the authoritative text in the court's own PDF.