An upstate bankruptcy judge has declined to determine whether an attorney should be penalized for the overzealous representation of a client, saying representation that pushes the limits of zealous advocacy typically falls within the province of disciplinary bodies.

Western District Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan, sitting in Buffalo, dismissed a complaint filed by a Florida law firm seeking to block a bid by attorney James Harrell Greason to discharge a debt of $99,000 for sanctions levied against him by a Florida court.

The Miami firm of Schatzman & Schatzman had argued before Judge Kaplan that Mr. Greason is not entitled to discharge his debt in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6) because he committed a “willful and malicious injury” against Schatzman & Schatzman during a seven-year-long case.

Judge Kaplan rejected that argument, saying the Florida firm waited too long to make its application. But he also expressed skepticism about the merits of the petition.

The judge observed that while an attorney who willfully disobeys a court order might be found to have committed “willful and malicious” conduct, representation that pushes or exceeds the limits of zealous advocacy typically falls within “the domain of Grievance Committees or other disciplinary bodies.”

“A lawyer who pushes too far may suffer disciplinary action that may cost the lawyer his or her license to practice law, may suffer a monetary judgment (as here), and the need to file personal bankruptcy (as here),” Judge Kaplan wrote in Schatzman & Schatzman v. Greason, 07-1077 K. “But, to place him or her at risk of both loss of license and nondischargeability of the monetary judgment goes too far toward chilling the zealous representation of clients upon which justice so often depends.”

Schatzman & Schatzman obtained the judgment for the payment of attorney’s fees against Mr. Greason in the Circuit Court for the 11th Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County. The Florida court imposed sanctions against Mr. Greason for filing and abandoning civil theft claims, for discovery problems and other violations, according to Judge Kaplan’s ruling.

The Miami firm represented a company with whom Mr. Greason’s client was embroiled in a lengthy dispute about the growing of garlic, among other things.

Schatzman & Schatzman first argued before Judge Kaplan that the judgment against Mr. Greason was not dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(4) because Mr. Greason was acting in a fiduciary capacity when he allegedly committed fraud and defalcation on the Florida court.

The Florida firm later sought to amend its complaint by adding the non-dischargeability claim for “willful and malicious” acts by Mr. Greason under 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(6).

Judge Kaplan said he would allow the Schatzman & Schatzman complaint to be amended, but that he would not allow it to “relate back” by implicating all of Mr. Greason’s conduct over the seven-year course of the litigation in Florida for which he was ultimately sanctioned. Mr. Greason was not under notice in the original complaint that he would have to defend against the “willful and malicious” allegations in the Florida judgment and that claim is now time-barred, Judge Kaplan held.

Generally speaking, the judge noted that the limitations period for filing claims is 60 days after the first date set for a §341 meeting of creditors, in keeping with the overarching “fresh start” goals of the Bankruptcy Code to allow debtors to dispose of their obligations and get on with their lives, according to Judge Kaplan.

The judge also rejected the contention by Schatzman & Schatzman that Mr. Greason has a fiduciary responsibility to the firm that would block dischargeability of the judgment against the attorney in the Florida court.

“To say that every dollar of unnecessary attorneys fees or expenses that a lawyer’s client’s opponent suffers as a result of the lawyer’s having overstepped the bounds of zealous representation of his or her client is instantly and magically transformed into a dollar which the lawyer owes his or her client’s opponent as ‘fiduciary’ thereto, is a trail this Court will not blaze,” the judge wrote.

Judge Kaplan has not granted yet Mr. Greason’s petition that his sanction debt be discharged. But Jeffrey N. Schatzman, who represented his firm, said there is not “enough time, energy or money” for him to appeal the dismissal of his firm’s complaint.

“I think the judge got it wrong,” Mr. Schatzman said in an interview.

He said the Florida court ruled against Mr. Greason based on a state law that makes attorneys equally as responsible as their clients for bringing an erroneous cause of action, attempting to defraud a court and for other wrongdoing.

In his papers before the Western District court, Mr. Greason listed an address in the Buffalo suburb of Williamsville, but there is no telephone listing for him.

Mr. Schatzman contended that Mr. Greason is continuing to practice law in south Florida; Schatzman & Schatzman argued before Judge Kaplan that the Chapter 7 case was filed in Buffalo to thwart the collection of the Florida court’s judgment.

There was no answer at the listing for a Greason residence in Florida.

Mr. Greason appeared pro se in the case before Judge Kaplan.