2. BACKGROUND- This is one of a number of cases in which Alaska trustees have moved to reopen old, closed cases because of potential recoveries from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. The oil spill occurred in March 1989.⁽³⁾ A class action was filed on March 30, 1989, in the district court.⁽⁴⁾ On April 21, 1989, less than a month after the oil spill litigation was commenced, the debtor filed this chapter 7 case.

        An ex parte motion to reopen this case was filed by the U.S. Trustee,⁽⁵⁾ based on the discovery of a possible asset in the form of a potential recovery related to the Exxon Valdez oil spill litigation. The court granted the motion to reopen.⁽⁶⁾ Although I did not do it in this case, in other cases I have interlineated a provision in the order to reopen the case that the court's granting of the motion to reopen does not imply that the court has determined that any property the trustee is attempting to recover has not previously been abandoned. The abandonment issue remains open.

        After this case was reopened and Larry Compton was appointment trustee, he requested that notices be sent to creditors by the clerk under the rule where an asset has         6 ABR 487  been discovered in a previous no-asset case.⁽⁷⁾ A notice was sent, but due to the age of this case, twenty-nine of the notices were returned unclaimed.⁽⁸⁾ The proof of claim docketing clerk sent form letters to Mr. Williams indicating that mail had been returned and it was the obligation of the debtor to keep the matrix accurate.⁽⁹⁾

        This letter prompted Mr. Williams to file his ex parte motion to extend the time to file claims for those creditors whose notices of the bar date were returned due to incorrect addresses until 60 days after the trustee publishes a notice of the bar date, and clarify his status as debtor's attorney in this case, which has been closed for almost eleven years.⁽¹⁰⁾ He suggests that the trustee's claim to the Exxon Valdez litigation proceeds (if any ever materialize) has been abandoned or is the fruits of debtor's exempt limited entry permit.

        The U.S. Trustee has filed a notice of a possible alternative address for the debtor,⁽¹¹⁾ as:

A Susan Geiermann is listed as an Alaska Permanent Fund dividend applicant at that address in 1999.

        There is no indication that the notice of this alternate address was served on Mr. Williams or any other party, but Mr. Williams discovered the address by reading the         6 ABR 488  court's file. Apparently the debtor has not received any of the notices about reopening or Mr. Williams' ex parte motion. The trustee's motion to reopen⁽¹²⁾ and the certificate of service filed by the Bankruptcy Noticing System⁽¹³⁾ for need to file a claim both used the outdated 1989 address of the debtor.

           3. ISSUES- There are two issues implicit in Mr. Williams' motion: (a) is it the debtor or debtor's attorney's responsibility in a case to update the mailing matrix when the original addresses were correct; and, (b) what is the status of an attorney in a case that has been long-closed and the debtor discharged?

           4. THE DEBTOR AND DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO AMEND THE ADDRESSES ON THE MASTER MAILING MATRIX-  Several notices of the return of the mailed bar date notices to creditors, each of which had a number of returned notices and envelopes, were sent to Mr. Williams as a standard court procedure. I agree with Mr. Williams that the procedure is ill-suited to the facts of this case.

        I find no national rule requiring the preparation of a "mailing matrix," although there is a rule about submitting lists of creditors, but in some cases this can be accommodated by merely filing the schedules.⁽¹⁴⁾

        On the other hand, there is a detailed local rule specifically identifying the type of mailing matrix which must be submitted.⁽¹⁵⁾ The rule states that the accuracy of the matrix         6 ABR 489  is the debtor's responsibility.⁽¹⁶⁾ This is to place an onus on a debtor and debtor's attorney at the beginning of a case that the mailing matrix be accurate.

        The local rule is not intended to cover the situation where a creditor who has received notice from the bankruptcy court after the case was filed later moves to a new address. In this case, the burden shifts to the creditor to correct the matrix. There is no rule specifically saying so, but it can be implied from FRBP 2002(g) which provides various rules about noticing of various events in a bankruptcy:⁽¹⁷⁾

        All notices required to be mailed under this rule to a creditor, equity security holder, or indenture trustee shall be addressed as such entity or authorized agent may direct in a filed request; otherwise, to the address shown in the list of creditors or the schedule whichever is filed later. If a different address is stated in a proof of claim duly filed, that address shall be used unless a notice of no dividend has been given. [italics added].

        It is possibly unrealistic to expect this of a creditor in a case that has been closed as a no-asset, and the creditor has been advised not to file a proof of claim in the first instance. Perhaps a notice by publication might be appropriate, but the court will reserve         6 ABR 490  decision on that. At the present time, the court will reserve the possibility of ordering a further notice in this case.⁽¹⁸⁾

           5. THE DUTY OF AN ATTORNEY IN CASES THAT ARE REOPENED-  A definitive ruling on Mr. Williams' motion cannot be given since the court does not know the contractual attorney-client relationship between the debtor and Mr. Williams, and she has apparently not been served with his motion.

        The scope of an attorney's authority and obligation to his client is generally controlled by the terms of their agreement.⁽¹⁹⁾ In the case of an uncomplicated chapter 7 engagement, it is likely that an attorney's obligations (and, the authority to act for the client) ended when the debtor received a discharge over 10 years ago. Although I have found no bankruptcy cases on point, the black letter law is that a lawyer is relieved of his obligation upon completion of specific legal services for which the lawyer was retained.⁽²⁰⁾ After the passage of many years, a matter coming up in a case might well be deemed to be after debtor's attorney's authority to act has terminated. The final answer requires a fact specific inquiry.

        Although a lawyer's authority to act for a client has terminated, the lawyer may nonetheless have residual obligations to the client. For example, the obligation "to take reasonable steps to convey to the former client any material communication the lawyer         6 ABR 491  receives relating to the matter involved in the representation."⁽²¹⁾ Thus, Mr. Williams has, at a minimum, the duty to pass information along to the debtor. Since he learned of a potential address for the debtor in Big Lake, he should have sent her the papers there. It is not clear that he did, so the court will send a courtesy copy to Ms. Geiermann (if she is in fact the debtor, the former Suzette K. Fejes).

        Unless there is a special contractual duty undertaken by Mr. Williams, however, I doubt he has a duty to do anything further, although I am not in a position to definitively rule.

DATED: June 19, 2000

HERBERT A. ROSS
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

N O T E S:

1.            6 ABR 485  Ex Parte Motion to Extend Time for Filing Proofs of Claim; Motion for Clarification of Status of Attorney, Docket Entry 48, filed April 25, 2000.

2.            6 ABR 485  Notice of Need to File Proof of Claim Due to Recovery of Assets, attached to Certificate of Service, Docket Entry 44, filed February 4, 2000.

3.            6 ABR 486  Exxon Shipping Co. v Airport Depot Diner, Inc., 120 F3d 166, 167 (9^th Cir 1997).

4.            6 ABR 486  In re the Exxon Valdez, Case No. A89-95-CV-HRH.

5.            6 ABR 486  Ex Parte Motion to Reopen Case, Authorize Trustee Appointment and Defer Court Fees, Docket Entry 32, filed March 15, 1999.

6.            6 ABR 486  Ex Parte Order to Reopen Case, Authorize Trustee Appointment and Defer Court Fees, Docket Entry 34, filed March 17, 1999, O&J #42371.

7.            6 ABR 487  FRBP 3002(c)(5); Notice of Asset Determination, filed February 1, 2000, at Docket Entry 42 by the trustee, Larry D. Compton.

8.            6 ABR 487  See, footnote 2.

9.            6 ABR 487  Return of Undeliverable Mail, Docket Entry 45, filed February 11, 2000; and Return of Undeliverable Mail, Docket Entry 46, filed March 13, 2000.

10.            6 ABR 487  Docket Entry 48.

11.            6 ABR 487  Notice of Alternate Address for the Debtor, Docket Entry 37, filed April 8, 1999.

12.            6 ABR 488  See, footnote 5.

13.            6 ABR 488  Certificate of Service, Docket Entry 44, filed February 4, 2000.

14.            6 ABR 488  FRBP 1007(a).

15.            6 ABR 488  Alaska Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-1.

16.            6 ABR 489  Alaska Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-1(b).

17.            6 ABR 489  FRBP 2002; see, also, 9 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 2002.08 (15^th ed rev 2000); Official Form 10, Proof of Claim form.

18.            6 ABR 490  Ex Parte Motion to Extend Time for Filing Proofs of Claim; Motion for Clarification of Status of Attorney, Docket Entry 48, filed April 25, 2000.

19.            6 ABR 490  See, Rule 1.1, Alaska Rules of Professional Conduct, Comment: Services Limited in Objectives or Means; cf, 7 AmJur2d § 136, Retainer.

20.            6 ABR 490  Maddox v Burlingame, 517 NW2d 816, 818 (Mich App 1994); Simpson v James, 903 F2d 372, 376 (5^th Cir 1990); Restatement of Law Third, Law Governing Lawyers, § 43, Termination of Lawyer's Authority, at § 43(e) (Proposed Final Draft No. 1 1996).

21.            6 ABR 491  Restatement of Law Third, Law Governing Lawyers, § 45, Lawyer's Duties When Representation Terminates, at § 45(c) (Proposed Final Draft No. 1 1996).