Mickl V. Murphy's Violation Of Bankruptcy Cases

There are two ways I could look at this proposed writing assignment. First, If Michelle opened a document service preparation business for herself and was not practicing law, giving advice, or representing clients, in or out of court, for any reasons, she may be able to perform a basic document typing service to clients. She must never hold herself out to be an attorney or legal representative in any way to any one and must state this in disclaimers and posted notices in her business as well as during client interview, she must state this upfront to all her clients. Then it would be possible for her to have a business, in this industry and not be in violation of the law. According to the case, In re Kaitangian (1998) 218 B.R. 102, 113 it basically states, "bankruptcy petition preparers are strictly limited to typing bankruptcy forms...”
Michelle would not fall under the “umbrella of,” that she has now by working directly under the guidance and supervision of the attorney. This is according to the case of Mickel v. Murphy (1957) 147 Cal.App.2d 718, 721. She is also in violation of the law according, to the case of Anderson (1987) 79 B.R. 482, 485. In summary, of when a paralegal is, “assisting with bankruptcies answered legal questions and assisted in legal decisions, all of which acts "require the exercise of legal judgement beyond the knowledge and capacity of the lay person.” Michelle has stepped outside her boundaries and would be in violation of the