Practice and Procedure

This panel covers the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) with bankruptcy, intellectual property law and secured transactions law. The panelists explore several questions that current law does not address or insufficiently addresses, such as: Who owns inventions created by AI? Do inventions created by the AI owned by a debtor company become property of a debtor company’s bankruptcy estate? Can a creditor obtain a security interest and perfect a security interest in the things AI creates? Should the UCC, intellectual property law and bankruptcy law be amended to address the new world of AI? How are the new White House administration and Congress addressing these issues?

This workshop builds on the success of a well-attended evidence 101 workshop format held during the 2024 Winter Leadership Conference, with this forum focused on judge/attorney participation. The panelists demonstrate a fun fact pattern through 3 vignettes — (1) argument on a motion in limine; (2) how to qualify an expert; and (3) voir dire/Daubert challenges — followed by small table breakouts.

This panel explores the ethical implications of AI in legal practice, focusing on fee issues and providing tips for crafting effective prompts. The panelists discuss how AI tools are reshaping billing practices and the standards for reasonable compensation, as well as practical strategies for integrating AI while maintaining ethical standards. Discover how to create powerful prompts that maximize AI's potential and ensure transparency with clients and courts. Don't miss this insightful conversation!

This panel will discuss the utility of Rule 2005 and sanctions.

In this candid and dynamic discussion, experienced bankruptcy judges will address the importance of adhering to the Bankruptcy Code as the foundation for successful practice and decision-making. As practitioners become increasingly reliant on precedent, creative arguments and procedural shortcuts, this session will serve as a reminder of the Code’s fundamental role in guiding bankruptcy proceedings. This discussion is designed for attorneys, trustees, and other restructuring professionals who seek to enhance their understanding of the Bankruptcy Code and its application in everyday practice. Expect lively discussion, practical advice, and a renewed appreciation for the importance of the Code in bankruptcy law.

In consumer bankruptcy cases, the ability to craft clear, concise and well-structured motions is critical to achieving favorable outcomes for clients. This panel provides practical insights into effective motion practice in bankruptcy court, focusing on strategies that enhance clarity, improve efficiency, and ensure that motions stand out for their quality and precision. Whether you are new to bankruptcy law or looking to refine your motion practice, the panelists provide you with practical takeaways to elevate your filings and effectively advocate for your clients in the bankruptcy court.

This panel explores all things evidence (well, not all), including fundamentals like presumptions, privileges and burdens of proof; often overlooked and underappreciated methods of presentation, such as summaries; practical pointers, such as how to value assets on the cheap; and emerging issues involving spotting and defending against “fake” evidence. The panelists will present a variety of perspectives from academia, the bench and the bar, all focused on providing practical advice on how best to prove your case (and maybe just a little about how to disprove the opposition).

This panel discusses idiosyncrasies and potential ethical traps of the attorney/client privilege laws in the Caymans and the U.S., and when those laws apply, even in recognition and other cross-border matters.

This panel will explore how good faith and bad faith are used in the Code and when it matters, how “developed” these notions are in the case law, and balancing the debtor’s right to dismiss when facing a motion to convert for cause under § 1307 for bad faith. The panelists will consider Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts and Law v. Siegel, the effect on property of the estate in a converted case under § 348 when converted in “in bad faith,” when a plan is not considered proposed in good faith under § 325, § 707(b)(3) dismissals when there is no presumption of abuse, avoiding a dismissal under § 521 related to document production, and filing a “repeat” debtor in a 7 when a 13 was filed less than six years prior under the “70% claims paid/plan proposed in good faith” exception.

Everyone knows that estate professionals must be disinterested and able to represent the debtor free of conflicts. But what happens when the professional represents a related nondebtor party — for example, the private-equity sponsor or the sole member/shareholder? What if the professional has relationships with others in the case? The professional may bring significant experience and value to the table, some being derived from its prior representation of the debtor, creditors or others involved in the case. When do these considerations outweigh the interests of the estate and the integrity of the system? Is disclosure of the potential conflicts and relationships enough? This panel will explore these and related issues to help guide professionals and judges alike.