IN RE: CRAIG STEVEN ROMANZI, KENNETH A. NATHAN, as Trustee of the Estate of Craig S. Romanzi v. FIEGER & FIEGER, P.C., - Articles

All Content

IN RE: CRAIG STEVEN ROMANZI, KENNETH A. NATHAN, as Trustee of the Estate of Craig S. Romanzi v. FIEGER & FIEGER, P.C.,

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Apr 8, 2022

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Robert G. Kamenec, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for Fieger & Fieger, P.C.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: B.A. Tyler, THE TYLER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Troy, Michigan, for Kenneth A. Nathan.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Robert G. Kamenec, PLUNKETT COONEY, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, Geoffrey N. Fieger, Sima G. Patel, FIEGER, FIEGER, KENNEY & HARRINGTON, P.C., for Fieger & Fieger, P.C.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: B.A. Tyler, THE TYLER LAW FIRM, PLLC, Troy, Michigan, for Kenneth A. Nathan.

Judge(s): BOGGS, THAPAR, and BUSH, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

BOGGS, Circuit Judge. Attorney Craig Romanzi referred a lucrative personal injury case to his employer, the law firm of Fieger & Fieger, P.C. (the “Firm”); meanwhile, creditors were winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in default judgments against him. The personal injury case settled for $11.9 million about $3.55 million of which was awarded as attorney’s fees after Romanzi had quit the Firm. Romanzi’s employment at Fieger & Fieger entitled him to a third of the fees as the originating attorney, his intervening departure notwithstanding. But before Romanzi could claim his due, his creditors forced him into involuntary Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The appointed trustee, Kenneth Nathan (the “Trustee”), commenced this adversary proceeding against the Firm to recover Romanzi’s third of the settlement fees on behalf of the bankruptcy estate.

Neither party’s critique of the lower courts is persuasive. As to Fieger & Fieger’s claims, none of the grounds for vacating an arbitral decision apply, and remand was appropriate under the clarification exception to functus officio. As to Nathan, he failed to present evidence for a key element of his statutory conversion claim. We therefore affirm the judgments of the district court and bankruptcy court.

Attachments: