the rffidavit prior to the April 2005 hearing on the objection. (Fair Aff. ¶ 18.) Fair’s actions were not only based upon advice of counsel but he acted in good faith when new information was disclosed to him. NOB’s motion for fees and/or sanctions against Fair for asserting an improper objection to NOB’s claim were denied by the Court as being without merit. (D.E. 985) Fair’s sole motivation in objecting to NOB’s claim was to assure that only legitimate creditors were paid. (Fair Aff. ¶ 20.) D. Reliance on Advice of Counsel It has also been established that a trustee’s reliance on advice of counsel can be used as a defense to claims of willful misconduct. In re Southeast Banking Corp., 314 B.R. 244 (Bankr.S.D.Fla.2004); Athanason v. Hubbard, 218 So.2d 475, 478 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969) (<HOLDING>). Here, the Liquidating Trust Agreement
holding that a receiver is not liable for loss resulting from his good faith reliance on the advice of counsel holding that plaintiffs who received fraudulent tax advice and acted in reliance on the advice though only alleging a future risk of being assessed penalties for acting on the advice had alleged an injuiyinfact holding that the district court erred in failing to instruct that good faith reliance on counsels advice is a defense to the fraudulent intent required for embezzlement under 29 usc  501c holding insurer not liable for bad faith when it denied insureds claim based on a good faith dispute regarding the interpretation of a rule holding that knowing reliance upon the advice of a nonattorney cannot support a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel in a removal proceeding