{"title":"律师职业道德","authors":"R. Bernhardt","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2227185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Commentary on a recent California decision sanctioning an attorney for charging fees in advance for loan modification services and criticism of the requirement in light of its deterrent effect on lawyer’s willingness to undertake such services for low income borrowers.","PeriodicalId":364523,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Ethical Issues (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Attorney Ethics\",\"authors\":\"R. Bernhardt\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2227185\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Commentary on a recent California decision sanctioning an attorney for charging fees in advance for loan modification services and criticism of the requirement in light of its deterrent effect on lawyer’s willingness to undertake such services for low income borrowers.\",\"PeriodicalId\":364523,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Ethical Issues (Topic)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Ethical Issues (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2227185\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Ethical Issues (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2227185","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Commentary on a recent California decision sanctioning an attorney for charging fees in advance for loan modification services and criticism of the requirement in light of its deterrent effect on lawyer’s willingness to undertake such services for low income borrowers.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
