Barrett Burke Wilson Castle Daffin & Frappier (BBWCDF)

At what point does the law firm of Barrett Burke Wilson Castle Daffin & Frappier become toxic?

Let me say that I have known Mary Daffin for years.  She is one of the most gracious and upstanding people that I know.  She has achieved wonders helping this firm grow into the powerhouse that it is.  She has always been open, honest and above board with me.  The problem is, due to the size of the law firm, and the enormous duties undertaken, we do not get to deal with Mary Daffin.  So we have to say, despite Mary Daffin, that with every hit the firm takes and with sanction it receives, BBWCDF seems to redesign itself into some organization that is more discordant, more shrill, more mischievous, more authoritarian, and more impervious in its approach.

This now is nowhere more evident than in how it has decided to handle its adversary proceedings.

Recently, BBWCDF was able to avoid further dollar popping sanctions for the way it conducts business, but only after it received about a 70 page tongue lashing from Bankruptcy Judge Jeff Bohm in the Southern District of Texas.  The result of which, according to the opinion, BBWCDF lost the business of Countrywide Home Loans in the State of Texas.  (The opinion is in two parts and can be read by clicking here and here).

It is hard to say if this is going to be the end of it.  Previously, Bankruptcy Judge Wesley Steen of the Southern District of Texas sanctioned the law firm $150,000.00 over an embarrassing set of facts that the law firm allowed to get out of hand.  The problem, however, was the pattern and practice problems that the Judge found with BBWCDF.  (You can read that decision by clicking here). And, this opinion and sanction was on the heals of a decision of Bankruptcy Judge Marvin Isgur of the Southern District of Texas that sanctioned BBWCD $65,000.00, but only after reducing it from $125,000 to give credit for the embarrassment and the hit to the credibility that the law firm must have taken from that case.  (You can read this decision by clicking here).

The decision in Parsley, the recent decision by Judge Bohm, even though without monetary sanctions is very telling in two regards. First, if BBWCDF had simply admitted that its client, Countrywide Home Loans, and its law firm had made a mistake and the debtor was not being charged for the mistake, then the motion to lift the stay would have quietly been dismissed.  (See pgs. 1 and 3 of the opinion, above). The second concerns what appears to be the strident arguments of BBWCDF that the Court lacked jurisdiction to review and correct the firm's conduct, that the Court did not have the right to raise the issue sua sponte, and that the Court did not have the right to award sanctions or hold BBWCDF in contempt.  (See pg. 53 forward of the opinion, above).

These same arguments now seem to continue to imbue, impregnate and infiltrate the arguments of, and the same strident positions continue, in BBWCDF's adversary defense practice.

I personally tend to believe that BBWCDF wants to correct whatever problems are out there, but it would appear the firm does not understand the problem, and they have brought in others to fix the problem by employing more of the same -- only in a more arrant and ardent way.  This is very disconcerting to those of us that are forced to deal with BBWCDF on adversary matters because the firm feels obligated to handle the defense of a client because BBWCDF handles their foreclosure work, bankruptcy work, or because BBWCDF is now intimately and deep-seatedly involved in allowing the conduct complained of to take place.

The problem is simply as expressed by Judge Bohm as "assembly line" work.  In short, it is okay to follow form on like style cases, but it is completely inappropriate to use form as a substitute for fluid analysis and reasoning of the case.  (See pg. 70 of Judge Bohm's decision, above). And, it is hard to argue with BBWCDF over this practice because it earns $9.7 million to $11.6 million a year employing this method.

So to correct the problem, BBWCDF employs more obstreperous, ridge, intractable rules, that makes it nearly impossible to settle an adversary against one of their clients who might have absolutely violated the automatic stay.  Or, at least that is what I have observed.

From what we have been told  by its adversary counsel, BBWCDF has now instituted rules in which it will not advise their clients to settle a case unless, (1) extraordinary measures were taken to "mitigate" the need to litigate -- namely the requirement to tell BBWCDF repeatedly to stop letting its clients violate the automatic stay under threat of litigation, (2) the debtor can prove to BBWCDF that the debtor has been "injured" by the conduct -- despite the repeated decisions of the Texas Courts that the willful violation of the stay and discharge injunction constitutes injury -- in short BBWCDF want nothing less than a "hard injury" as opposed to something subtle like violating the law, and (3) that debtor can prove to BBWCDF that he or she or the family has incurred actual out-of-pocket losses, damages or expenses, other than attorneys' fees and costs, for the bad conduct of its client.  Rules, taken together are in my opinion wrong, and cannot be met.  Hence, no remedy short of trial.  BBWCDF wants now to engage in briefing of all points in relation to any allegation, outside of court action, and minus any of these things there will be no resolution short of trial.

And herein lies the problem.  Mary Daffin reviews these matters and deals with them fluidly and in a business practice manner.  The same would be true in the matters stated above, but the damage is done by the adoption of bad, unwavering, inextricable, immovable, bawdy, and self-serving rules that are rigorously and boisterously enforced until such time as Mary Daffin learns of the consequences, as above.  Then, as we have seen, it is too late.  Add to this bureaucratic bungling, and amateurish adherence to to crappy rules, as the cases above would indicate, and you have a these legalistic and truthfulness and practice questioning fiascoes and misadventures as shown above.

The bottom line is really this.  BBWCDF are attorneys that must explain all of the pros and cons, both legal and practical, to their clients (but as we have seen in the Parsley case above, they have not even been communicating directly to their clients), and make practical decisions, or at least advise your clients to make practical decisions.  But, as their new and improved adversary rules show, these are not practical.  Instead, BBWCDF formulates rules in which it act as the final and sole arbiter of all of these matters and it, and no one else has a say on the direction.  That is what has lead to this image of BBWCDF being so arrogant and an impossible party with which to work.

Of course the new adversary rules represents a continuation of form over substance.  I think it is going to be damaging to BBWCDF and their clients, but what can you say.  As much as we have tried to explain our position on the matter and the consequences of this decision on the firm's reputation in the legal community, they have tuned out and refuse to listen.  The die has been cast so to speak.

So, what can you do in an adversary proceeding situation.  I think as far as automatic stay and discharge injunction violations are concern, BBWCDF is often involved in the action either through their foreclosure department or bankruptcy department, or a combination of both.  This at worse makes them a witness in these cases and at best makes them a party.  After all, if BBWCDF has notice of the bankruptcy, and allows its client, and participates with its client, on violating an injunction of the Court, then it is equally liable under the law. In these instances, although it has never been our desire, or any law firm's desire, to bring BBWCDF in as a party, the firm is creating an environment that this might be unavoidable.  Then, or course, if BBWCDF is potentially a witness in a case, and they do not have the good sense to refer the client on to different counsel, they are likely violating the lawyer-witness rule.  A motion might have to be filed to have the firm disqualified from the case.  Evidence and argument in either regard must start with the decisions above.

All of this is really disheartening.

Comments

[PRINCE ELLA GREEN]

OUR BANKRUPCY WAS DISCHARGED 2000,WHAT GOOD DID IT DO.MIDLAND MORGAGE HAS BOUGHT THIS ZOMBIE DEBT AND REPORTED ON OUR CREDIT AS ALIVE DEBT.WE CONTACTED FTC,THE OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION,AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TX. TOOTS CONTACTED THEM FOR 7MO.IT DID NO GOOD,EVEN PROVIDING THE DISCHARGE ORDER.BBWCDF REPRESENTED MIDLAND AND STOOD BY THEM AND AGREED THAT WE OWE THE DISCHAGED DEBT.3MOS. AGO BBWCDF SENT A LETTER STATING THAT THEY ARE A DEBT COLLECTOR ATTEMPTING TO COLLECT A DEBT.ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE.BBWCDF ALSO SAID WE DID NOT HAVE CLEAN HANDS IN THE MATTER.THEY SAY TO THIS VERY DAY THAT WE OWE THE DISCARGE DEBT.WE ARE STILL FIGHTING 8YRS LATER,NO SLEEP,NO REST,AND SEEING A PSYCHOTHERAPIST!

[James Green]

DEBT COLLECTOR’S SUCH AS BARRETT BURKE WILSON CASTLE DAFFIN & FRAPPIER, HAVE DISPLAYED A REMARKABLE DISRESPECT FOR THE BANKRUPTCY LAWS. BARRETT BURKE WILSON CASTLE DAFFIN & FRAPPIER THOSE ARE SOME BAD BOYS. SANCTIONS TO THEM IS LIKE A PAT ON THE BACK. IN 1995 WE FILED BANKRUPTCY DUE TO AN ON THE JOB INJURY. OUR BANKRUPTCY WAS DISCHARGED WITHOUT EVER MISSING A PAYMENT IN 2000. CENLAR FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK SOLD THE DISCHARGED MORTGAGE DEBT TO AURORA LOAN SERVICES, AURORA REPORTED IT AS A FORECLOSURE ON OUR PERFECT CREDIT IN 2002. MIDLAND MORTGAGE BOUGHT IT FROM AURORA IN 2005.

MIDLAND MORTGAGE REPORTED IT AS A LIVE AND COLLECTABLE DEBT IN 2005.THE DEBT WAS RE-AGED BY EACH DEFENDANT. THE SAD PART ABOUT THIS WHOLE DRAMA IS BARRETT BURKE AND THE WILD, WILD WEST BOYS SENT US A LETTER IN FEBRUARY 2008 STATING THAT WE ARE LIABLE FOR THIS DEBT, AND THEY ARE A DEBT COLLECTOR TRYING TO COLLECT A DEBT. OUR THEN BANKRUPTCY ATTORNEY RON GIPSON WARN THEM IN 2007 TO STOP TRYING TO COLLECT THE DISCHARGED DEBT. WELL, THEY DIDN'T. WE CONTACTED THE OFFICE OF THRIFT SUPERVISION, THEY COULDN'T CONVINCE THEM TO CEASE THIS NIGHTMARE. WE THREW UP OUR HANDS AFER 8 YEARS OF THIS DRAMA. (BBWCDF) WHO REPRESENT AURORA LOAN SERVICES AND MIDLAND MORTGAGE CO. SAID WE DID'T HAVE CLEAN HANDS, EVEN THOUGH THE DEBT WAS DISCHARGED. UM, THESE BOYS HANDS HAS BEEN IN THE COOKIES JAR FAR TOO LONG, IF ANYBODY’S HANDS ISN'T CLEAN, IT IS (BBWCDF).

ARE BANKRUPTCY LAWS LEFT UNATTENDED? IS THIS BY DESIGN? THESE BAD BOYS ARE SKATING ALL OVER THE LAW, DOING A BREAK DANCE ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK, TRYING TO GIVE CONSUMERS A HIGH FIVE! ATTORNEY WALTER THURMOND, BARRETT WLISON, FRAPPIER, THESE GUYS REPRESENT AURORA LOAN SERVICE AND MIDLAND MORTGAGE CO., ALL WAS SENT COPIES OF THE DISCHARGE ORDER BY CERTIFIED MAIL JANUARY 2008. NOTHING SEEMS TO BACK THESE BAD BOYS AWAY . (BBWCDF) HAS BEEN SANCTIONED OVER, AND OVER, AND OVER AGAIN, TO THEM THAT SIGNIFY THEY ARE DOING A GOOD JOB RIPPING PEOPLE OFF. THE FAIR DEBT COLLECT PRACTICE ACT, (FDCPA) SHOULD READ, “FOREVER DODGING CREDITORS PERSISTENTLY ATTACKING!”

JAMES A GREEN

[James and Prince Ella Green]

Free At Last,Free At Last,thank GOD almighty,we ar Free At Last.Two mo. ago we filed a complaint with THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. TRUSTEES about Barrett Burke Wilson Castle Daffin Frappier unfair,dont care,dirty hands,disrespect,husseling,ripping off,gold digging,force-closig,I mean FORECLOSURE machine,excuss me,out of control debt collecting practices.I was beggining to think there was another BURGER KING in town, cause they sure had it thier way for a while.Now I want to know,BAD BOYS,BAD BOYS,WHAT U GONNA DO ,WHAT U GONNA DO WHEN THEY COME FOR U? BAD BOY!!!!!!OH by the way we are adding (BBWCDF) to our law suit.