In re Ayo H. Akatugba

Background

Andrew J. Christensen, the attorney for debtor Ayo H. Akatugba, appealed the bankruptcy court’s April 19, 2023 order referring him to the Standing Committee on Professional Conduct under Civil Local Rule 11-6. The bankruptcy court cited a written brief that allegedly miscited authority and lacked candor, along with Christensen’s conduct at a later hearing. Christensen argued that the referral was a sanction issued without due process.

Jurisdiction and analysis

The district court explained that it could hear appeals from final judgments, orders, and decrees entered by a bankruptcy court. It considered whether the referral was an appealable sanction. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had held that a judicial finding that an attorney violated a specific ethical rule is an appealable sanction. But the bankruptcy court’s referral order did not identify a specific ethical rule that Christensen violated, and it did not expressly reprimand him. Its reference to Christensen’s violation of the “duty of candor” was, the district court concluded, more like judicial criticism than an appealable sanction. The referral order instead sent the matter to an independent committee for investigation and possible further disciplinary proceedings.

Ruling

The district court found that neither the referral order nor the comments in it constituted an appealable sanction. Because the court therefore lacked jurisdiction over Christensen’s appeal, it dismissed the appeal. Judge Jon S. Tigar signed the order.