"Bottle of Wine" Bankruptcy Sanctions Order Upheld!

Boy I remember the days when you could smooth over a dispute with a federal judge simply by delivering a nice bottle of wine and a hand-written note on the judge's doorstep.

Actually, I don't ever remember those days.

Regardless, the 11th has weighed in and affirmed the sanctions order:

Gleason has identified no authority supporting his contention that the First Amendment shields from sanctions an attorney who files an inappropriate and unprofessional pleading and then contacts a presiding judge ex parte with an offer to share a bottle of wine and “privately” resolve their dispute. When an attorney files inappropriate and unprofessional documents, a court may impose sanctions based on its “inherent power to oversee attorneys practicing before it.” Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., 293 F.3d 1306, 1308 (11th Cir. 2002) (upholding a district court’s decision to sanction an attorney who submitted documents containing personal attacks on opposing counsel).

In the present case, the bankruptcy court found that Gleason’s written submissions to the court and sending a judge a bottle of wine with an offer to resolve their differences privately amounted to “sanctionable professional misconduct.”

Oh well,  I hope somebody drank it, a nice bottle of wine is a terrible thing to waste.

(Maybe it was part of the record on appeal?)

Kevin Gleason and Judge Olson -- Yes, There's More.

We've reported extensively on the saga involving bankruptcy lawyer Kevin C. Gleason and his unique brand of written advocacy before Bankruptcy Judge John K. Olson.

Well of course Gleason appealed the en banc sanctions order, leading to yet another Order on this topic, this time from Judge Marra:

Based on the Court’s review of the record, the Court concludes that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in sanctioning Mr. Gleason pursuant to its inherent power. The April 18, 2011 Response to Order to Show Cause and May 13, 2011 Supplemental Response demonstrate bad faith on the part of Mr. Gleason, violated his duty as a member of the bar and damaged the reputation of the Court, the judicial system, the legal process and the legal profession.

 Unfortunately for Mr. Gleason, it goes downhill from there......

To the Moon, Gleason!

Well, for at least 60 days.

SFL Friday -- It's Coming, It's Finally Coming!

School, that is.

Thank goodness!

Let's see, what else -- Edwards Angell defeats Carlton Fields in Vero Beach beauty contest, and more on Kevin Gleason's peace wine offering to Bankruptcy Judge Olson.

I feel the pain:

And Rumpy, your Friday photo is here -- this one's for you:

Have a great weekend, everybody!

Kevin Gleason Offers Wine as Peace Offering to Bankruptcy Judge Olson.

So it all comes down to this: an apology and a bottle of wine.

What, no flowers?  No chocolate?

And guess what -- those vituperative responses was all borne from frustration:

B. The Responses Are the Product of Frustration.

14. Attorney Gleason’s responses are the product of frustration due in large part to the
Court’s mistaken conclusion that his client had assented, pursuant to an agreed order, to the turnover of his commission to the plan administrator. The proper method to seek redress in such circumstances is to file an appeal, which Attorney Gleason did. During the pendency of the appeal, which was filed on November 4, 2010, the Court issued the Show Cause Order and later submitted the order for publication with Westlaw. This unfortunate turn of events escalated what was initially perceived as a mere legal conflict into something more personal in nature. The Responses, while intentional, do not reflect a dishonest or selfish motive.

I see -- the old "Westlaw-as-provocation" defense.

In other words, the judge should have kept quiet about the whole thing, but he had to go and blab about it to all our neighbors!

Is Local Bankruptcy Bar Too "Understandably Tepid" To Represent Kevin Gleason?

Tepid Bankruptcy Bar

Kevin Gleason has a show cause hearing to worry about in front of Bankruptcy Judge Olson just because of a bunch of words he put on digital paper (and then filed with the Court).

So naturally he reached out to hire an attorney to represent him.

But this was not easy, according to his motion to continue:

Immediately upon receipt of the En Banc Order, I began a search for counsel.

3. The response from attorneys practicing before this Court was understandably tepid.

4. It was suggested that I seek counsel outside of this District, and I immediately reached out to my first choice, the Honorable Francis G. Conrad.

5. Former Judge Conrad is currently of counsel to the firm of Jager Smith, practicing from offices in Manhattan and Boston.

A Big City lawyer, I see.

But Judge Conrad has hip surgery plus rehab coming up, so will Judge Olson reschedule the hearing?

Stay tuned......

Judge Olson Schedules En Banc Show Cause Hearing Against Kevin Gleason.

Olson Gleason En Banc Show Cause

Bankruptcy attorney Kevin Gleason's blistering response to Judge Olson's order to show cause is already legendary, and led to an order by the Judge promising further sanctions.

Well things do not look so good, according to today's order, and may include possible criminal sanctions:

The nature of Attorney Kevin Gleason's April 18, 2011 written response to the court's sua-sponte show-cause order is such that the continued show-cause hearing will be en banc. 

Local Rule 2090-2(B)(1) provides:

Upon order to show cause entered by at least one judge, any attorney appearing before the court may, after 30 days' notice and hearing and for good cause shown, be suspended from practice by the court, reprimanded or otherwise.

The continued show-cause hearing will consider appropriate sanctions under the court's inherent authority for Gleason's November 2, 2010 and April 18, 2011 Rule 9011(b) violations.  The continued show-cause hearing will also address whether the tone and/or content of Gleason's April 18th written response constitutes civil or criminal contempt of this court.  Attorney Kevin Gleason is ordered to appear and articulate cause why civil or criminal  contempt sanctions should not be imposed.

Mark your calendars:  June 16th at 1:30 p.m.

No mention as to whether Mr. Gleason should be taking his toothbrush to this hearing as well.

To the Moon, Gleason!

OlsonbitesGleason

In a follow up to the response to order to show cause heard 'round the world, SD FL bankruptcy Judge Olson -- surprise -- didn't seem to like the tone of Gleason's response:

Because Gleason has repeatedly raised arguments unsupported by law or the record and engaged the court in a disrespectful tone, the court finds that Gleason’s behavior demonstrates bad faith supporting the imposition of sanctions under the court’s inherent authority.

The Court reserved on the appropriate sanction to be imposed and will be holding another hearing.

Someone posting as Kevin C. Gleason made a reference to Proverbs 27:17 in our comments section -- I suspect Kevin will need to refer to the Good Book a few more times before this whole thing is done.

One Way to Answer an Order to Show Cause.

Gleason Response

Anyone remember SD FL Bankruptcy Judge John K. Olson?

Well on March 31st he entered an order to show cause against Hollywood bankruptcy attorney Kevin C. Gleason, reported at 2011 WL 1355300 (Bankr.S.D.Fla).

Kevin's response is an interesting read, to say the least.

The opening paragraph is a doozy -- so much for mindfulness...

(It would have made a really great first draft!)

To my loyal tipsters -- what happened at the 4/20 hearing?

Judge Olson Recuses!

Judge Olson Recusal Order

Bankruptcy Judge Olson, who previously denied a motion to recuse based on his partner's employment in the bankruptcy group at Ruden McClosky, has now changed his mind and granted a second motion to recuse (although he still thinks he doesn't have to):

 On September 3, 2010, the Defendants filed “Second Motions” seeking my recusal and vacatur of rulings. These “Second Motions” are actually reconsideration motions which do not satisfy reconsideration standards. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated on the record at the hearing conducted October 28, 2010, the Plaintiff believes that recusal and reassignment will be beneficial as a practical matter. I will accordingly recuse myself to speed these adversary proceedings to a more prompt conclusion.

So I guess the Judge is saying that if the plaintiff did not otherwise agreed, the second motion would also have been denied.

New Motion To Recuse Judge Olson And Motion to Disqualify Ruden Filed.

The defendants who sought to recuse Bankruptcy Judge Olson have filed a second motion to recuse.  They have also moved to disqualify Ruden McClosky and are seeking discovery on the circumstances of the judge's fiancé/spouse moving from Orlando to South Florida to go live with the Judge.

Thanks to the miracle of Scribd, you can read the second motion for recusal here, and the motion to disqualify is here.

Bankruptcy Judge Olson Denies Incendiary Motion To Recuse.

orderdenyingrecusal

Although many tipsters (thank you!) alerted me to this motion to recuse filed before Fort Lauderdale Bankruptcy Judge John K. Olson last week, I was reluctant to blog about it.

To be honest, I still am.

In any event, Judge Olson has now forcefully (in my view, persuasively) addressed the motion on the record.

He held an expedited hearing on the motion Thursday afternoon, and just entered his order denying the recusal request.

The order has a pretty good summary of the alleged grounds, which I won't repeat here, but Judge Olson really gets going when he discusses the type of "disclosure" the movants appear to be requiring of him:

The movants would have me engage in pointless record disclosure at the beginning of every matter in which Ruden McClosky represents a party:

For the record, I am getting married to an attorney who works for the Plaintiff’s firm. He is not involved in this case and recusal is therefore not required under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(5)(ii). He is a salaried attorney who has no interest which could be affected such that recusal is not required under 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(4) or (b)(5)(iii).  This record disclosure is required pursuant to § 455(a) and (e) to avoid any appearance of impropriety, but you are not entitled to withhold waiver because my fiancé’s employment is an insufficient basis for recusal under the case law applying § 455. Please confer outside of my presence and notify my law clerk when you are prepared to give your mandatory record waiver.

And this is no joke. This is quite literally what the movants are asking for. Their misunderstanding of § 455 was painfully betrayed at the August 26th hearing when movants’ counsel forcefully argued that I should recuse myself from any matter in which Ruden McClosky represents a  party. Whether movants’ counsel did not adequately research the case law on this subject, or simply did not digest it, I do not know. But fiery, impassioned oral argument in the face of a glass mountain of precedent, with no acknowledgment of that glass mountain, and no hint at a good faith basis for a change in the law? This is normally sanctionable under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011(b). The only reason why sanctions are not warranted here despite this appalling lack of diligence is the “layman perception” rule.

As they say, read the whole thing.