佛罗里达家庭法倡导的界限:合作实践的授权

J. Esq., A. Joshua
{"title":"佛罗里达家庭法倡导的界限:合作实践的授权","authors":"J. Esq., A. Joshua","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3235076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I argue that the Florida Family Law Bounds of Advocacy is mandatory as to family attorneys, not merely aspirational and that given the parallel philosophies between the BoA and collaborative practice, all family attorneys should become trained in collaborative practice and offer it is as the first solution for family law dispute resolution. The paper offers public policy suggestions to help shift legal practice from litigation to collaboration.","PeriodicalId":82201,"journal":{"name":"Nova law review","volume":"43 1","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Florida Family Law Bounds of Advocacy: A Mandate for Collaborative Practice\",\"authors\":\"J. Esq., A. Joshua\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3235076\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I argue that the Florida Family Law Bounds of Advocacy is mandatory as to family attorneys, not merely aspirational and that given the parallel philosophies between the BoA and collaborative practice, all family attorneys should become trained in collaborative practice and offer it is as the first solution for family law dispute resolution. The paper offers public policy suggestions to help shift legal practice from litigation to collaboration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82201,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nova law review\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"1-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nova law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3235076\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nova law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3235076","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

我认为,佛罗里达州家庭法倡导范围对家庭律师来说是强制性的,而不仅仅是有抱负的,而且鉴于《家庭法》和合作实践之间的平行理念,所有家庭律师都应该接受合作实践方面的培训,并将其作为家庭法纠纷解决的第一个解决方案。本文提出了公共政策建议,以帮助将法律实践从诉讼转向合作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Florida Family Law Bounds of Advocacy: A Mandate for Collaborative Practice
I argue that the Florida Family Law Bounds of Advocacy is mandatory as to family attorneys, not merely aspirational and that given the parallel philosophies between the BoA and collaborative practice, all family attorneys should become trained in collaborative practice and offer it is as the first solution for family law dispute resolution. The paper offers public policy suggestions to help shift legal practice from litigation to collaboration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信