In the Matter of Laurence Semel Laurence Semel’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
4 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably In re LTV Securities Litigation (1981), Duval County Ranch Co. v. Alamo Lumber Co. (1983)
4 district · 5 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Colton v. United States · United States v. Pape · Mauch v. Commissioner · Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Federal Power Commission · Hudson v. Wylie
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The bankrupt also urges that he is not required to list eases pending in his office because information about such matters involves privileged communications between him and his clients. All fees and commissions earned and accrued prior to bankruptcy, or relating to services already performed, even though they may be paid thereafter, are assets of the bankrupt estate. Parkford v. C. I. R., 133 F.2d 249 , 146 A.L.R. 57 (9 Cir. 1943), cert. denied 319 U.S. 741 [ 63 S.Ct. 1029 , 87 L.Ed. 1698 ]; In re Austin, 42 F.Supp. 889 (E.D.N.Y, 1942); 4A Collier on Bankruptcy (14 Ed.) ¶ 70.34. In the absence of unusual circumstances, the fact of a retainer, the identity of the client, the conditions of employment and the amount of the fee do not come within the privilege of the attorney-client relationship. Mauch v. C. I. R., 113 F.2d 555 (3 Cir. 1940); United States v. Pape, 144 F.2d 778, 782-783 (2 Cir. 1944); Colton v. United States, 306 F.2d 633 (C.A.2, 1962); Wirtz v. Fowler, 372 F.2d 315, 332-333 (C.A.5, 1966); In re Wasserman, 198 F.Supp. 564 (D.C.D.C.1961). The determination that the facts relating to a particular retainer comes within the privilege is to be made by the referee in the first instance. Presently, there is nothing in the record upon which such a determination can be made. The mere assertion of an attorney-client relationship is not enough. It may turn out that in some of the cases the bankrupt has earned nothing at the time of the filing of his petition. See, for exa”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the absence of unusual circumstances, the fact of a retainer, the identity of the client, the conditions of employment and the amount of the fee”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.