Case No: 03-40283-NLW.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey.
February 20, 2009
NOVALYN WINFIELD, Bankruptcy Judge
Dear Judge Winfield:
After a succession of e-mails, phone calls and other communication with Mac Truong, the bankrupt in this matter and principle in To-Viet-Dao, it became apparent that there was a miscommunication between this office and Mr. Truong regarding the motion filed on February 5, 2009. See attached email by Mr. Truong.
Rather than withdrawal of the motion it was Mr. Truong’s desire to have it carried until the next motion date while he attempted to obtain new counsel for the case.
Therefore and unfortunately it is respectfully requested that the instant motion be carried for one motion cycle in order for Mr. Truong to obtain new counsel.
This office still desires to be removed as counsel regarding said motion.
Page 1
Dear Anthony Ambrosio:
I just learned that Hank wrote to Judge Winfield of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court to withdraw the motion you had filed on behalf to To-Viet-Dao LLP on February 5, 2009. He further advised the Court that he would make a formal motion to withdraw as TVD’s counsel later.
Apparently there is no reason to withdraw the motion. Hence it should not have been withdrawn.
And since it is a motion for reconsideration, which must befiled within 10 days of the issuance of the order to bereconsidered, a withdrawal at this time would have caused movantto lose the right to timely file said motion for reconsideration.
Therefore by doing so while you are still attorney for TVD you have committed clear-cut case of malpractice due to office’s failure to timely file a most meritorious motion, resulting in TVD’s loss of its claim of $401,000.00, simply for having not being represented by a licensed attorney.
In order to avoid such sanctionable malpractice, I suggest thatyou immediately advise the Court that you withdraw your requestto withdraw TVD’s motion, but hold it in abeyance until such timeas your motion to withdraw as TVD’s attorney would have beengranted, and TVD would have been represented by another attorneyat law.
Kindly do so immediately to preserve TVD’s right to property, otherwise a complaint to the appropriate authorities supervising attorney’s conduct would be made, in additional to any appropriate civil action against your law firm’s misconduct.
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT OR ORDER Pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9022
Please be advised that on February 26, 2009, the court entered the following judgment or order on the court’s docket in the above-captioned case:
Document Number: 522 — 512
Letter Opinion Filed: (related document: [512] Motion to Vacate filed by Debtor Mac Truong). The following parties were served: Debtor, Debtor’s Attorney, Trustee, US Trustee and Movant’s Attorney. Signed on 2/26/2009. (dlr)
Parties may review the order by accessing it through PACER or the court’s electronic case filing system (CM/ECF). Public terminals for viewing are also available at the courthouse in each vicinage.