The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion Monday reversing a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel decision that had blocked a debtor's legal malpractice lawsuit against her former bankruptcy counsel. In *Akhlaghpour v. Orantes*, the appeals court ruled that Mehri Akhlaghpour can continue prosecuting her state court malpractice suit against Giovanni Orantes, Luis Solorzano, and the Orantes Law Firm.
The three-judge panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and Anthony D. Johnstone, along with District Judge Scott H. Rash sitting by designation, reversed the BAP's decision and vacated in part the bankruptcy court's original order. The case was remanded to the bankruptcy court with specific instructions.
The dispute centers on the application of the Barton doctrine, a legal principle that requires individuals to seek bankruptcy court permission before suing court-appointed attorneys in other forums for acts performed in their official capacity. Under this doctrine, when a person wants to sue a lawyer appointed by the bankruptcy court for actions taken in the lawyer's role as court-appointed counsel, they must first obtain leave from the bankruptcy court to pursue the lawsuit elsewhere.
According to the court's summary, Akhlaghpour had initially received permission from the bankruptcy court to continue her ongoing state court legal malpractice suit against her former bankruptcy counsel. However, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel later reversed that decision, effectively blocking her lawsuit from proceeding.
The Ninth Circuit's reversal restores Akhlaghpour's ability to pursue her malpractice claims in state court. Judge Rash, writing for the panel, addressed the intersection of the Barton doctrine with the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, another legal principle that generally prevents federal district courts from hearing cases brought by parties who lost in state court and are essentially asking the federal court to review and reject state court judgments.
The opinion clarifies that a bankruptcy court's order granting leave to sue under the Barton doctrine does not constitute an improper modification of state court decisions. This distinction is important because it helps define the proper boundaries between bankruptcy court authority and state court jurisdiction in cases involving legal malpractice claims against court-appointed counsel.
The case arose from Akhlaghpour's bankruptcy proceedings, where Orantes and his law firm apparently served as her court-appointed counsel. The specific nature of the alleged malpractice was not detailed in the available portions of the opinion, but Akhlaghpour evidently believed she had grounds to sue her former attorneys for professional negligence or other forms of legal malpractice.
The procedural history shows that Akhlaghpour first sought and obtained permission from the bankruptcy court to pursue her state court lawsuit against the attorneys. This initial grant of leave followed the proper procedure under the Barton doctrine. However, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel subsequently reversed this decision, finding that the bankruptcy court had erred in granting permission for the lawsuit to proceed.
The Ninth Circuit's reversal of the BAP decision represents a victory for debtor rights in the context of legal malpractice claims. The ruling suggests that bankruptcy courts should be more permissive in allowing debtors to pursue legitimate malpractice claims against their former court-appointed counsel, provided the proper procedural requirements are met.
This decision could have broader implications for how bankruptcy courts handle similar requests for leave to sue court-appointed attorneys. The opinion appears to establish that such permission should not be denied simply because the lawsuit might involve review of actions taken during the bankruptcy proceedings.
The case was argued and submitted on May 19, 2025, in Pasadena, California, before being decided on January 20, 2026. The opinion is designated "For Publication," meaning it will serve as binding precedent within the Ninth Circuit and persuasive authority in other jurisdictions.
The remand to the bankruptcy court suggests that while the Ninth Circuit agreed that Akhlaghpour should be allowed to pursue her lawsuit, there may be specific conditions or limitations that the lower court must address on reconsideration.
For bankruptcy practitioners and debtors, this decision clarifies the standards for obtaining permission to sue court-appointed counsel and reinforces that the Barton doctrine should not serve as an insurmountable barrier to legitimate malpractice claims. The ruling emphasizes the importance of proper procedural compliance while protecting debtors' rights to seek recourse when they believe their court-appointed attorneys have provided inadequate representation.
The decision in *Akhlaghpour v. Orantes* adds to the body of Ninth Circuit precedent governing the relationship between bankruptcy proceedings and subsequent litigation against court-appointed professionals, providing clearer guidance for future cases involving similar fact patterns.