Drake v. Sea Island Bank (In re Collins), 489 B.R. 917, 923 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2012). See also In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591, 599 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004) ("If a Chapter 11 case is converted to [a] Chapter 7 case, the appointed Chapter 7 trustee is essentially a successor estate representative."). Once a trustee has been appointed, the trustee assumes all responsibility for matters formerly handled by the debtor's management.

See U.S. v. Moazzeni, 906 F. Supp. 2d 505, 514 (E.D. Va. 2012); In re Myers, 382 B.R. 304, 309 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2008) ("In the context of a bankruptcy, the attorney-client privilege is narrowed."); see also In re Wilkerson, 393 B.R. 734, 742-43 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2007); In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591, 596 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004). To satisfy this burden, the movant must demonstrate with facts—not mere assertions—that the attorney-client privilege exists.

As to the attorney-client privilege, the United States Trustee cites several cases to support the position that the privilege is to be strictly confined and, that in the bankruptcy context, the right to assert this privilege has been narrowed and that the existence of an attorney-client relationship and the attorney compensation arrangement have been held to be outside the scope of the attorney-client privilege. In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591, 596 (Bankr. Mass. 2004). The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has stated that the privilege applies only if the party claiming privilege shows:

But see In re Silvio De Lindegg Ocean Developments of America, Inc., 27 B.R. 28 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.1982) (holding that a trustee could not waive an individual debtor's privilege). Spitko, supra at *19, quoting In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591, 598 (Bankr.D.Mass.2004). This Court finds the balancing approach to be well-reasoned and will follow it.

But see In re Silvio De LindeggPGPage 4 Ocean Developments of America, Inc., 27 B.R. 28 (Bankr.S.D.Fla. 1982) (holding that a trustee could not waive an individual debtor's privilege).Spitko, supra at *19, quoting In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591, 598 (Bankr.D.Mass. 2004). This Court finds the balancing approach to be well-reasoned and will follow it.

"The privilege serves the purpose of promoting `full and frank communications.'" In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591, 596 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004) (quoting Upjohn v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 (1981)). Open and honest communication is the foundation of the relationship between attorneys and their clients.

But see In re Silvio De Lindegg Ocean Developments of America, Inc., 27 B.R. 28 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 1982) (holding that a trustee could not waive an individual debtor's privilege).In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591, 598 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004). I appreciate that, in this proceeding, the chapter 7 trustee is seeking to avoid prepetition transfers made by the debtors as constructively fraudulent.

The Court has done so in recognition of the trustee's duty to investigate the finances of the debtor and ensure that the debtor is acting in good faith, for it is supposed to be only honest debtors who can avail themselves of the benefits of the bankruptcy system. In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591, 596 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004). Black's Law Dictionary defines finance as being "concerned with the value of the assets of the business system and the acquisition and allocation of the financial resources of the system," Black's Law Dictionary 630 (6th ed. 1990), while Webster's defines it as the "money or other liquid resources of a government, business, group, or individual." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 463 (9th ed. 1989).

And when asked why he would represent a client who had listed a malpractice claim against him in her schedules, Attorney Lupan raised a concern that the attorney-client privilege protected his communications with the Debtor relative to their compensation arrangement, the malpractice claim, and the formation of Classic Asset. The Trustee and IEI then filed a joint motion asking this Court to determine whether the Trustee had the authority to waive the Debtor's privilege with respect to these matters. In In re Eddy, 304 B.R. 591 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004), this Court held that Debtor's attorney-client privilege did not apply to attorney compensation discussions during the Chapter 11 case or to issues relating to the administration of property of the estate while the Debtor served as debtor in possession. The Court is not aware of the results of subsequent efforts at discovery (other than those complained of here) and the history of the case thereafter sheds no light on the curious business relationship between the Debtor and Attorney Lupan.