Chapter 11 announced - Part 14 - Plan Effective

[ThenNow]

On 9/27/2025 at 12:18 PM, Patt_00 said:

An attorney who fails to properly vet proofs of claims in a bankruptcy case can face severe consequences, including court sanctions, professional discipline, and civil liability for legal malpractice. A client may also have grounds to void their fee agreement and recover any damages suffered. 

On what specific basis are you (and the other SS&S clients) seeking to void the contract? Also, you noted that you have an attorney "willing to help, as well as research this online." I'm not sure what that means. I ask this not to in any way challenge the mess they have created for you. I fear this will be a very difficult, time consuming and expensive process, even if you and the other aggrieved claimants seek to void the fee agreement as a group. The firm hired by SS&S seems capable in complex litigation, including this type of case.

[ThenNow]

On 5/19/2025 at 6:55 PM, ThenNow said:

In fairness, I need to set aside my typical schtick and sarcastic banter for a second. I have a hard time grasping that there is no way I will ever know the folks who waded through and assessed my case and the massive sets of documents. At the core of me, I have must say to all that I am grateful. Grateful they spent the time. Grateful they were the ones assigned to my case. Grateful they believed me. When the words in the letter hit me, I realized I had been holding my breath since February 18, 2020. The racking sobbing I did on my wife's shoulder testified to that. And, I say again, whoever you are, however many of you there are, I am grateful for the 'verdict' you returned. Likewise, I am very sad for any who do not have the chance to exhale. Deeply sad.

-The End

Hello, fellows, friends and frenemies. (That's humor and not nose punching.) Just want to give an update for what it's worth.

Following the proposed award announcement and explanation thereof, I filed a Reconsideration Request. It was directed at the SoL tolling argument, based on fraudulent concealment. After I filed my brief, I realized I missed a huge issue that was ancillary to the tolling argument. It occurred to me that if the Trustee ruled favorably on the SoL issue, she would necessarily have to find that the Aggravating Factor under Total Abuser Profile was at the max, since BSA "knew or should have known" about the abuse. I scrambled to write and upload the new brief within an hour of the initial upload, but they disallowed it on the technicality that the Request was already submitted. After making a big fuss with the Trust folks, they uploaded the second document. Although Judge Houser agreed with and accepted my tolling argument, she did not fully move my case to the Open category. She stated that there still needed to be a measure of "trial risk" reduction, but granted the multiplier under the "knew or should have known." That's my news of the moment. 

PS - I only share this as an update and by no means to discourage or further dishearten my fellow survivor claimants. I'm just trying to faithfully and candidly report my experience as I have done since the outset. Peace and healing to all...

[Eagle1970]

I made the exact argument on my appeal.  She disallowed it in its entirety.  I also argued fraudulent concealment and showed case law from Missouri allowing settlements and trials to proceed far outside the SoL.  My abuse was at the hands of a boy scout employee.  I'm sure she would say that the appeal is final, at this point.  But this is exactly what I thought would happen.  Some cases would receive favorable treatment and others not, even with the same argument.

[ThenNow]

6 minutes ago, Eagle1970 said:

I made the exact argument on my appeal.  She disallowed it in its entirety.  I also argued fraudulent concealment and showed case law from Missouri allowing settlements and trials to proceed far outside the SoL.  My abuse was at the hands of a boy scout employee.  I'm sure she would say that the appeal is final, at this point.  But this is exactly what I thought would happen.  Some cases would receive favorable treatment and others not, even with the same argument.

I'm very sorry.

[clbkbx]

1 hour ago, Eagle1970 said:

Some cases would receive favorable treatment and others not, even with the same argument.

That is very frustrating and I'm sorry it wasn't the outcome you should have had. 

[Patt_00]

7 hours ago, ThenNow said:

On what specific basis are you (and the other SS&S clients) seeking to void the contract? Also, you noted that you have an attorney "willing to help, as well as research this online." I'm not sure what that means. I ask this not to in any way challenge the mess they have created for you. I fear this will be a very difficult, time consuming and expensive process, even if you and the other aggrieved claimants seek to void the fee agreement as a group. The firm hired by SS&S seems capable in complex litigation, including this type of case.

The attorney's name is Lawrence Friedman. He has partnered Timothy Silverman. This issue will be handled relatively quickly in the bankruptcy court. The retainer agreement is on contingency with no risk to us. The contingency fee agreement is a fraction of the 40% the Slater firm agreement. They were just admitted Pro Hac Vice.

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/e4a3c757-8462-49e1-b1a8-abdbea5c3f3d_13149.pdf

https://casedocs.omniagentsolutions.com/cmsvol2/pub_47373/c9074ad5-add0-4e84-b240-349e4b854098_13148.pdf

 

This is how Lawrence and Timothy are going to get fee agreements voided.. 

Quote

 

An attorney who fails to properly vet proofs of claims in a bankruptcy case can face severe consequences, including court sanctions, professional discipline, and civil liability for legal malpractice. A client may also have grounds to void their fee agreement and recover any damages suffered. 
Penalties for the attorney
Court sanctions

• Rule 9011 violations: Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9011, an attorney who submits a document to the court (like a proof of claim) certifies that they have conducted a "reasonable inquiry" into the factual allegations. An attorney who fails to do so can face sanctions, which may include monetary fines, reprimands, or other non-monetary penalties.
• Approval of employment: Incompetent representation may lead to the bankruptcy court refusing to approve the attorney's employment or denying fees.
• Fee reduction or disgorgement: If a court finds an attorney's services were inadequate, it can reduce or order the disgorgement of fees already paid by the client.
• Disqualification: If an attorney signs a proof of claim, they risk becoming a witness in a dispute and could be disqualified from representing the client in that matter. 

Professional discipline

• State bar rules require attorneys to provide competent representation and act with diligence. An attorney who negligently handles a bankruptcy case can be reported to the state bar. Disciplinary actions can include:
• Suspension of their law license.
• Revocation of their law license (disbarment).
• Reprimands or censure. 

Civil liability for legal malpractice

• An attorney's failure to exercise reasonable care is a breach of the professional standard of care and can expose them to a legal malpractice lawsuit.
• The client must prove that "but for" the attorney's negligence, they would have had a better outcome in the bankruptcy case.
• In the context of unvetted claims, this could mean the client suffered damages from:
• Losing property that could have been protected.
• Having their debt discharge denied.
• Paying invalid or inflated claims. 

Grounds to void the fee agreement

A client may be able to void their fee agreement if the attorney's failure to vet claims rises to the level of negligence or a breach of professional ethics.

• Breach of contract: The client could argue that the attorney's failure to provide competent and diligent service constitutes a material breach of the fee agreement.
• Voidability under state law: Some state laws specifically allow for fee agreements to be voided for an attorney's failure to meet specific professional standards.
• Fee disputes: Even without a lawsuit, the client can challenge the attorney's fees through a fee dispute resolution process, arguing the fees are unreasonable due to the attorney's incompetence. 

Client recourse if harmed
If a client has been harmed by an attorney's failure to vet claims, they should:

• Seek a new attorney: Consult with new counsel experienced in legal malpractice to understand their options.
• File a lawsuit for legal malpractice: If damages can be proven, the client can file a civil suit to recover any losses.
• Report the attorney to the state bar: File a disciplinary complaint to have the attorney's conduct reviewed.
• Object to the fee agreement: Ask the bankruptcy court to void the fee agreement or disgorge the fees already paid due to the negligent representation. 

 

•  

 

Here is information about Lawrence that @MYCVAStory posted last year. Its a good read. We are in good hands

 

Quote

 

To Survivors who have filed claims in the Boy Scouts bankruptcy case:

My name is Lawrence Friedman.  I am a former Director of the US Trustee Program.  Prior to my appointment to that position, I was a bankruptcy trustee in Detroit where I administered more than 10,000 bankruptcy cases under both Chapter 7 and Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code.  I discovered considerable fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system, and I began writing and speaking about my findings, ultimately testifying multiple times before the US Senate Subcommittee on proposed reforms to the bankruptcy system.  My inside view led to my appointment as the Director of the Program responsible for the oversight of the bankruptcy system.  Within 90 days of my appointment, I was faced with the mega bankruptcies of Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia.  I immediately championed a change in policy which mandated the appointment of examiners in each of these cases.  Examiners bring transparency to the process, and examiners also act as a clearing house for information thus adding efficiencies to the administration of these cases. 

Since leaving the Department of Justice, I have been increasingly troubled by the use of the bankruptcy system to solve societal problems.  My focus is on these mass tort cases where victim Survivors are being victimized again by bad actor tort lawyers.  I believe that my team can bring these matters to the attention of the Court and effectively free up more than $70,000,000.00 in funds which these lawyers are claiming in fees and which rightfully should go to Survivors.  The explosion of claims within these cases is particularly troubling.  I have authored several editorials and white papers on this topic.  That said, real change comes from action.

I have been reviewing claims filed in the BSA case and I am appalled by the practices of some of the attorneys.  Many used claim aggregators to solicit clients and filed claims in these cases using the standard bankruptcy proof of claim form.  The claim form is available online and was designed to allow non-lawyers to fill it out.  The form doesn’t even have to be correct because if it’s not the debtor will object to the claim, and you get an opportunity to fix it.  Yet every law firm that solicited large numbers of claimants had the client sign a one-page retainer agreement that gives the lawyers a 40% contingency fee for doing nothing more than filing out this form.  The lawyers want to pretend this is a typical contingency fee case when in fact all they did was simply fill out a form.  Rather than collecting 40% of the money paid to victims, these lawyers should get a fee similar to petition preparers – non- lawyers who help people fill out forms to be filed in court – which would be more like $150.00.  There are other serious problems with these retainer agreements such as whether they comply with state laws and state bar ethics rules. 

Just as in the mega corporate cases, transparency in these mass tort cases is critical to fairness.  My firm wants to help Survivors get the attention and assistance they deserve.  Any compensation we receive would be a small fraction of the 40% they are being overcharged now!"

I am interested in chatting with any victim Survivors who have expressed dissatisfaction with the manner in which their claim has been handled by their current counsel.  They can contact me with no obligation at: mailto:lfriedman@friedmanpartners.net