The court entered judgment in plaintiffs' favor on their non-dischargeability claim against debtor. More than a year later, debtor sought relief from that judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6), asserting that his trial counsel had committed malpractice. The court denied the motion, concluding that debtor's 14-month delay in seeking relief was not a "reasonable time" within which such a motion must be made. Moreover, debtor had not alleged facts that would justify relief under Rule 60(b)(6), even if his claim had been timely, and any claim debtor might have that was based on his attorney's malpractice would have to be pursued against the attorney in a separate action. In the action between plaintiffs and debtor, any neglect by debtor's attorney would be attributable to debtor.