FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUL 14 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
In re MURRAY WINDMAN and No. 09-60055
PAULINE WINDMAN,
BAP No. 08-1080-MkHPa
Debtors.
__________________________________
MEMORANDUM *
ARTHUR G. LAWRENCE,
Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES TRUSTEE,
Appellee.
Appeal from the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel
Markell, Hollowell, and Pappas, Bankruptcy Judges
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2011
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, IKUTA, Circuit Judge, and PIERSOL,
District Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Lawrence L. Piersol, Senior District Judge for the
District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.
page 2
The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to order disgorgement of Lawrence’s
fees for both bankruptcy filings. See Tsafaroff v. Taylor (In re Taylor), 884 F.2d
478, 481 (9th Cir. 1989). The court didn’t abuse its discretion by reducing those
fees, as there was sufficient evidence that Lawrence’s filings were incomplete and
the associated cases dismissed. Nor did the court abuse its discretion in ordering
disgorgement of any fees partially billed for services pertaining to the state court
proceedings, as neither the state court representation nor the fees therefor had been
authorized by the court. The bankruptcy court also reasonably found those services
deficient, especially given that his license was suspended before the state court
matter was resolved. Lawrence misstates the record when he claims that the
bankruptcy judge gave him only five minutes to oppose disgorgement: The judge
permitted long statements from him before limiting him to “five more minutes.”
(Emphasis added.) Finally, Pauline Windman’s preferences can’t moot the
disgorgement order. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 329(b), 330(a).
AFFIRMED.