4 ms·
I don't understand your first point. Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to
by law 15y ago
I don't understand your first point. Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to by statute irrefutably proves my point: that the practice of law must be (self-)regulated.
Regarding your second, the fact that you pay your company's taxes is irrelevant. "You" can be substituted by any other shareholder or partner; the shareholders/partners are not the corporation. The corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial.
Some jurisdictions may have rules deviating from this to allow corporate pro se representation by 100% shareholders in small claims matters, but they would be the exception.
- Daniel_Newby 15y ago> Nothing precludes a non-lawyer from reporting an attorney's misconduct. However, the fact that they cannot be compelled to by statute irrefutably proves my point: that the practice of law must be (self-)regulated. Failure to report a crime is a crime. For everybody.
- nl 15y agoFailure to report a crime is a crime. For everybody. That's not true. In the US the offence still exists, but: This offense, however, requires active concealment of a known felony rather than merely failing to report it.[1] In most other English speaking jurisdictions the crime itself has been abolished. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misprision_of_felony
- nknight 15y agoIrrelevant. Violation of a legal obligation is not the same thing as commission of a crime. An act may simultaneously be a violation of legal ethics and a crime, but usually not. Ethics violations are punishable by, amongst other things, civil sanctions, fines and disbarment, but not criminal penalties.
- dchest 15y agoThe corporation is its own, independent legal entity. Because it's fictitious, it cannot make decisions, which means (as a matter of law) it's incompetent to stand trial. I don't follow the logic here. If it's fictitious and incompetent to stand trial, then why it can be brought to trial at all?