As a follow-up to your Jan. 17 article titled “Bar won’t weigh in on garnishments,” I write to bring to your attention an important and much broader separation of powers issue that is implicated by House Bill 683, which is quickly moving through the Legislature.
In short, HB 683 seeks to reverse UPL Advisory Opinion No. 2010-1-which was approved by the Supreme Court of Georgia-and declare that the execution and filing of an answer to a summons of garnishment “shall not constitute the practice of law.” HB 683 �§ 18-4-8b � c.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
