## Facts

- Allan J. Rittenhouse was admitted to the Texas bar and later moved to Wisconsin; he was denied admission to the Wisconsin and Michigan state bars.
- Rittenhouse was admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan and maintained a practice limited to federal bankruptcy matters, including appearances in the associated bankruptcy court.
- Michigan bar authorities asserted his Michigan-based work constituted unauthorized practice; later state-court proceedings were resolved by an agreement limiting conduct deemed unauthorized under Michigan law.
- Rittenhouse represented Ernest J. Desilets in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case; Delta Home Improvement, Inc., a creditor, sought sanctions against Rittenhouse.
- The bankruptcy court concluded that because Rittenhouse was not licensed by the Michigan state bar, he was not an “attorney” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(4), treated him as a “bankruptcy petition preparer” under 11 U.S.C. § 110(a), imposed a $3,500 fine, ordered disgorgement of $872 in fees, and indefinitely suspended him from practice before the bankruptcy court.
- The district court affirmed, reasoning that federal admission authorized only “appearance” in federal court and that state unauthorized-practice rules controlled whether he could “practice law” in Michigan.

## Issues

1. Whether a lawyer admitted to a federal district court bar, but not licensed by the forum state bar, is an “attorney” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(4) for purposes of representing clients in federal bankruptcy proceedings in that district.
2. Whether the bankruptcy court may reclassify such a federally admitted lawyer as a “bankruptcy petition preparer” under 11 U.S.C. § 110(a) and impose § 110-based fines, fee disgorgement, and suspension on that basis.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and remanded.
- The court held Rittenhouse qualified as an “attorney” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(4) because he was admitted to, and in good standing with, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
- The court rejected the view that federal admission permits only “appearance” and not the “practice” of law in the federal forum.
- Because Rittenhouse was an “attorney,” he could not be treated as a “bankruptcy petition preparer” under 11 U.S.C. § 110(a); sanctions premised on § 110 were therefore improper.
- A dissent would have given greater weight to state authority over unauthorized practice and professional regulation.

## Legal Principles

- For Bankruptcy Code purposes, “authorized under applicable law to practice law” in 11 U.S.C. § 101(4) includes federal law governing admission to a federal court’s bar, including valid local admission rules and the federal court’s inherent authority over practice before it.
- A state’s unauthorized-practice regime does not, by itself, negate an attorney’s status as an “attorney” in federal bankruptcy proceedings when the attorney is duly admitted to the relevant federal district court.
- A bankruptcy court may not invoke 11 U.S.C. § 110(a) to treat a federally admitted lawyer as a “bankruptcy petition preparer” where § 101(4) is satisfied.
- Federal courts control admission to and discipline within their own bars; state regulation may operate separately as to state-court practice but cannot override federal admission within the federal forum.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit held that admission and good standing in the federal district court bar made Rittenhouse an “attorney” under the Bankruptcy Code for bankruptcy practice in that federal court, reversed § 110-based fines, disgorgement, and suspension imposed by treating him as a petition preparer, and remanded for further proceedings.


Rittenhouse v. Delta Home Improvement, Inc. (In re Desilets), 291 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2002)