What's Your Position on SB 94 - CA Bill Establishes Can't Trust Lawyers

[Mandelman]

Here's my argument against... and I have nothing further... do you? Please... I really want to know your position on this. Thanks...

[url]removed...ask permission before simply promoting your blog, please post a link to the bill instead, thank you [url]

[2manybills]

I've worked in the legal community for over 30 years in CA. My boss is Past President for a large national defense attorney organization. While I have certainly met some crazy attorneys over the years, and have seen some (not that I've worked for) disbarred for things, I totally agree with the article. Most of the attorneys I have worked for and known truly care about their clients and their particular situation.

As the writer said, to brand a particular group is unbelievable. Why are our legislators focusing on blame in CA instead of fixing our economy.

[kenshirley]

I spent some time as a union business manager as part of my career. In that time I hired and fired many attorneys.
I dealt with both civil and criminal laws at the federal level.
I found that many attorneys are just flat incompetent.
But I have also found this to be true of doctors. After all, they are medical practitioners and just practicing medicine.

[junker]

ABSOLUTELY....lawyers cannot be trusted at all...unfortunatly most politicians and even Judges..are lawyers that couldnt make it in the lawyer business..so they turned to being politicians. and judges...i have dealt with and known quite a few lawyers and not ONE would i completely trust. even on this site..how many have had bad bk lawyers...and the question...how many times did it take them to pass the bar exam....is a VERY relevant question to ask....lawyers are really the ones complicating everything with so much legal nonsense that the average person is FORCED to hire them...after all they are also the politicians passing the laws that no one can understand...what happened to COMMON SENSE....if you file a complaint against them...guess who reads the complaint....thats right..more lawyers....they protect their own....just like the police do.....how many times have you seen obvious brutality or even killing by the police and they get off with nothing.....how about that chicago cop that beat down that female bartender...alll he got was PROBATION.....remember that the judge is also a LAWYER.......

[SocalBroke]

Wow, there's 10 minutes I will never get back.. Honestly, posting to only 1 biased side of an argument and then requesting input is usually only done to elicit agreement. Reaching an informed opinion would requre reading a nuetral synopsis of the bill and then, if so inclined, reading both a positive and negative summary. There is a reason voter's guide are written exactly that way.

As always, ymmv

[Mandelman]

Here's my argument against... and I have nothing further... do you? Please... I really want to know your position on this. Thanks...

[url]removed...ask permission before simply promoting your blog, please post a link to the bill instead, thank you [url]

I apologize... I assure you that I was not trying to promote my blog. I was only trying to get the opinions of bankruptcy attorneys on this bill which, at this point seems at least likely to pass into law in the next couple of weeks.

Here's a link to the text of CA SB 94. As I had mentioned in my article, the only part that I am focused on is the recently added language that would prohibit attorneys from accepting a retainer when agreeing to represent a client seeking to obtain a loan modification agreement from their lender or servicer.

For the record, my blog accepts NO advertising and generates NO revenue. In addition, I am in no way connected to the mortgage industry, the real estate industry, the banking industry, or any industry connected to the issue at hand. I am solely an advocate for homeowners at risk of foreclosure who, assuming SB 94 passes, will be forced to negotiate with their lenders or servicers without legal representation.

Here's a link to the text of CA Senate Bill 94, which was introduced by Sen. Ron Calderon, Chair of the Senate Banking Committee.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_94_bill_20090723_amended_asm_v92.html

[Mandelman]

I've worked in the legal community for over 30 years in CA. My boss is Past President for a large national defense attorney organization. While I have certainly met some crazy attorneys over the years, and have seen some (not that I've worked for) disbarred for things, I totally agree with the article. Most of the attorneys I have worked for and known truly care about their clients and their particular situation.

As the writer said, to brand a particular group is unbelievable. Why are our legislators focusing on blame in CA instead of fixing our economy.

Thank you for your response. To answer your question, I really don't know why the California Bar Association is supporting SB 94, or I should say I don't know any substantive reason. As to the motivation behind the bill itself, it's driven by the banking lobby that continues to drive legislation that favors banks at the expense of the greater economic good.

[Mandelman]

Wow, there's 10 minutes I will never get back.. Honestly, posting to only 1 biased side of an argument and then requesting input is usually only done to elicit agreement. Reaching an informed opinion would requre reading a nuetral synopsis of the bill and then, if so inclined, reading both a positive and negative summary. There is a reason voter's guide are written exactly that way.

As always, ymmv

Here's a link to the bill, CA SB94:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_94_bill_20090723_amended_asm_v92.html

I apologize for not providing the link to the bill's text in my original post. I had thought that since I was posting on a forum of attorneys, there wasn't much risk of unfairly manipulating the audience by only presenting one side of the argument. In addition, my "one side" was hardly a subtle presentation. The only section of the bill that I'm concerned with is the recently added language prohibiting attorneys from accepting a retainer when representing a client seeking a modification of his or her mortgage through negotiation with a lender or servicer.

So, on one side we have a law that says that lawyers, just like mortgage brokers or real estate licensees, cannot be trusted to charge a client money up front in the case of a loan modification, or there is too great a likelihood that the client will be scammed.

And on the other side is the ten minutes you wasted.

BTW, what does ymmv mean?

[catleg]

Why do you have a problem with this? It's like running an unprotected server on the internet. Sure, you should be able to exist unharassed, however, experience has shown that unprotected servers become a public nuisance.

In a similar way, while not all lawyers taking retainers for mod work are necessarily thieves, all lawyer-thieves who do mod work are going to ask for retainers. Thus, eliminate the retainer, eliminate the nuisance. The quality lawyers will have to figure out another way to get paid, sadly, but they should police their own ranks better, for the most part, industry self-regulation also does not work.

[SocalBroke]

Here's a link to the bill, CA SB94:

http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_94_bill_20090723_amended_asm_v92.html

I apologize for not providing the link to the bill's text in my original post. I had thought that since I was posting on a forum of attorneys, there wasn't much risk of unfairly manipulating the audience by only presenting one side of the argument. In addition, my "one side" was hardly a subtle presentation. The only section of the bill that I'm concerned with is the recently added language prohibiting attorneys from accepting a retainer when representing a client seeking a modification of his or her mortgage through negotiation with a lender or servicer.

So, on one side we have a law that says that lawyers, just like mortgage brokers or real estate licensees, cannot be trusted to charge a client money up front in the case of a loan modification, or there is too great a likelihood that the client will be scammed.

And on the other side is the ten minutes you wasted.

BTW, what does ymmv mean?

Thanks for the additional information. You'll have to forgive my suspicious nature, it's an unfortunate consequence of reading too many politcal blogs.

YMMV = your milage may vary

[Mandelman]

Why do you have a problem with this? It's like running an unprotected server on the internet. Sure, you should be able to exist unharassed, however, experience has shown that unprotected servers become a public nuisance.

In a similar way, while not all lawyers taking retainers for mod work are necessarily thieves, all lawyer-thieves who do mod work are going to ask for retainers. Thus, eliminate the retainer, eliminate the nuisance. The quality lawyers will have to figure out another way to get paid, sadly, but they should police their own ranks better, for the most part, industry self-regulation also does not work.

Well, for one thing... I am not aware of any attorneys that have defrauded homeowners out of retainers, and if that were to happen, there are plenty of laws in place that would provide recourse. And two... If attorneys aren't allowed to accept a retainer when involved in a loan modification, they simply won't handle those clients. That will leave consumers without legal representation when negotiating with lenders and servicers, which is what the banks want of course, but I would argue is not good for consumers.

[Mandelman]

Thanks for the additional information. You'll have to forgive my suspicious nature, it's an unfortunate consequence of reading too many politcal blogs.

YMMV = your milage may vary

Thanks for saying that... I understand completely... I'm relatively new to the whole blogging world. Although I've been a writer for 20 years, I only started "blogging" a few months ago, so I'm only now developing my suspicious nature. In my case, I'm not trying to play any kind of game other that to seek out debate on this issue which I do have to say, I think is incredibly stupid and politically motivated.

The banks don't want homeowners to have lawyers so they start claiming everything's a "scam" and next thing you know there's a bill saying that an attorney can't charge a fair retainer to a client who wants representation.

I'm not saying anyone's perfect... I'm just saying that the answer in this case, seems to be worse than the problem.

Your thoughts?