http://www.bankruptcylawnetwork.com/retain-complete-originals-not-just-signature-pages-when-going-paperless/
Um, not so fast. That electronic filing was your certification that you had
clean documents, with the original signatures, of what you just filed. You
certified that you had more than the wet signature pages and the revision-marked
versions; you reprinted the revised sections so the client AGAIN reviewed and
signed the documents after being updated to incorporate the previous changes.
And you’re exposed to sanctions if you do not have clean printouts of the
documents in your office identical to the filed PDFs, printouts which were
signed after all the changes were made no matter now minor the changes – even
simple typographic errors. In re Daw, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 279 (Bankr. D.
Idaho 2011), In re Tran, 427 B.R. 805
(Bankr. N.D. CA 2010), aff’d sub nom. In re Nguyen, 447
B.R. 268 (9th Cir. BAP 2011), In re Harmon, 435 B.R. 758 (Bankr. N.D.
GA 2010). In re Brown, 328 B.R. 556 (Bankr. D. N.D. CA 2005).
My attorney did not do any of this as a matter of fact the only schedules sent to me went to a wrong address and the attorney Barbara Rogers admitted in court she sent them to the wrong address. The courts refused to present me with any signed schedules by me as well as never sanctioned the lawyer.
Um, not so fast. That electronic filing was your certification that you had
clean documents, with the original signatures, of what you just filed. You
certified that you had more than the wet signature pages and the revision-marked
versions; you reprinted the revised sections so the client AGAIN reviewed and
signed the documents after being updated to incorporate the previous changes.
And you’re exposed to sanctions if you do not have clean printouts of the
documents in your office identical to the filed PDFs, printouts which were
signed after all the changes were made no matter now minor the changes – even
simple typographic errors. In re Daw, 2011 Bankr. LEXIS 279 (Bankr. D.
Idaho 2011), In re Tran, 427 B.R. 805
(Bankr. N.D. CA 2010), aff’d sub nom. In re Nguyen, 447
B.R. 268 (9th Cir. BAP 2011), In re Harmon, 435 B.R. 758 (Bankr. N.D.
GA 2010). In re Brown, 328 B.R. 556 (Bankr. D. N.D. CA 2005).
My attorney did not do any of this as a matter of fact the only schedules sent to me went to a wrong address and the attorney Barbara Rogers admitted in court she sent them to the wrong address. The courts refused to present me with any signed schedules by me as well as never sanctioned the lawyer.
RSS Feed