ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Bankruptcy Blogs -> Arizona Bankruptcy Attorney Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Bankruptcy

: Arizona Bankruptcy Attorney Blog

I'm not just an Arizona Bankruptcy Attorney; I'm also a Debt Relief Agency!

By Joseph McDaniel, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS
Under the 2005 Amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, there are some very odd provisions that interfere with the relationship between attorney and client in ways seldom, if ever, attempted previously in federal law.

The rules of ethics and other rules controlling attorney conduct have traditionally been issues left to the states.

The BARF Act takes it upon itself to tinker with the attorney client relationship in a several ways.

On the one hand, instead of making bankruptcy lawyers wear the cone of shame or a funny hat, they are classified as debt relief agencies. So I am now a human being, an Arizona bankruptcy lawyer, and a "Debt Relief Agency", and I'm required to let people know that; and I can live with the label requirement.

At another level, the rules of ethics of the various states are uniform in one regard. Lawyers have an ethical duty to give the best advice to their clients that they can.

Prior to the enactment of the BARF Act, the issue of a new car could have come up in discussions with a bankruptcy lawyer. And I can imagine a situation in which a debtor still had good credit but saw a bankruptcy coming. And I can also think of a situation where a potential debtor could be best served by advice to buy a new car while the potential debtor still has good credit, because that that time, the debtor could get a much better interest rate than just after the bankruptcy.

Under the BARF Act, that advice, however well meaning, and however helpful and useful to a potential debtor, is simply forbidden. A "debt relief agency" cannot give advice to incur any new debt for any reason whatsoever.

So what if, from a state ethical rules perspective, a lawyer would be required to advise such a course of action to a client, because it's just the best advice under the circumstances?

Tough tomatoes, said the Supreme Court of the United States as to that potential issue.

The citation to the case is Milavetz v. United States, 559 U.S. ____ (2010).

While I believe that the portions of the Bankruptcy Code are about as unconstitutional as is possible, and clearly not in the best interest of anybody but banks, being a Supreme means never having to say you're sorry.

And accordingly, no prohibited advice from this particular debt relief agency!

Full post as published by Arizona Bankruptcy Attorney Blog on May 20, 2010 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0023 secs (from cache 11/04/26 11:58:00)