Relevant:
- O.C. Superior Court Judge Agrees State Bar WRONG on SB 94, But...
- California Lawyers Decide SB 94 Doesn't Apply To Them
- Two Years Waiting for the New York Times to Write About Lawyers & Loan Modifications, and they Still GET IT WRONG
- California: The State Bar Speaks Re: SB 94
- California State Bar RECENT Decision to Cause More Harm to Homeowners in Foreclosure
2009-10-30 — ml-implode.com
The State Bar's WRITTEN GUIDANCE DOES NOT PROHIBIT LAWYERS FROM BREAKING UP SERVICES RELATED TO A LOAN MODIFICATION INTO CONTRACTUAL SEGMENTS, PAID FOR AS THOSE SERVICES ARE COMPLETED.
HOWEVER, the Bar's interpretation of the new law DOES NOT allow attorneys to accept funds in advance into a trust account and be paid from that trust account. The Bar focused on the word "receive" in the language contained in the statute as the basis for their interpretation, stating...
source article |
permalink |
discuss |
subscribe by:
|
RSS |
email 
Comments:
BigRedDog at 09:51 2009-10-31 said:
More evidence that the CA bar is worthless and its "chief counsel" is incompetent. This analysis is the half-baked product of a bad attorney. Even a 1L would spot the problem with the chief's analysis. It stops at the verbs and does not look at the subject of the action, which is "compensation." Compensation, which according to the single most cited reference in law, Black's Dictionary is defined as "remuneration (payment) and other benefits received in return for services rendered." Client money deposited into a trust account has never been considered payment or remuneration. It defies the entire theory of a trust. It is client property, plain and simple. It does not become attorney compensation until it is removed from the trust. If the Legislature or Bar wanted the language to reach trust accounts, they should have drafted language that said deferred compensation, which at least can be argued to mean money put in trust to be claimed later. Further more, if the law was meant to address trust accounts, the most common vehicle used by attorneys, it would include trusts in the list of prohibited claims in subsection 2. To come to the constrained conclusion that it does include trusts violates fundamental rules of statutory interpretation, expressio unius est exclusio alterius: items not on the list are assumed not to be covered by the statute. Add this to the long list of reasons why the California bar is worthless. I hope the Gov continues to deny their authority to collect dues. Permalinkadd a comment | go to forum thread
Note: Comments may take a few minutes to show up on this page. If you go to the forum thread, however, you can see them immediately.
