The aim is to guarantee the rights of all citizens regardless of nationality, gender, education or status. Politicians and marketers call this “rebalancing the argument.” People who have read too many books might be tempted to call it “sophistry.” Normal people simply call it “deceiver.” We can all agree that a “distinction without distinction” is something we want to avoid being blamed. A linguistic or conceptual distinction that has no practical meaning or does not affect meaning; A perceived difference where there is no real difference. “A distinction without distinction” – a colloquial term used by someone who wishes to recognize that, although there is a linguistic or conceptual distinction between a number of options, such a distinction has no significant practical effect. To claim that a situation represents “an indiscriminate distinction” means that any difference between a particular set of options is a logical fallacy – a pure creature of misperception. When it comes to the concepts of asset protection planning and fraudulent transfer rights, one must ask whether the law makes a distinction where there is no difference. This essay identifies these differences. Part II provides a summary description of asset protection planning and the rationale for it. It also includes a brief discussion of the contents of Virginia`s fraudulent transfers law and the potential legal implications such transfers may have on a customer. More importantly, this essay involves the unenviable task of articulating the essential legal and ethical difference between the two. Part III lists the factors a lawyer may look for in determining whether a client`s desired objectives are legitimate asset protection planning or fraudulent transfers. Part IV deals with the ethical implications of a lawyer helping a client plan for asset protection and/or fraudulent transfers.
Finally, Part V of this essay provides basic guidance for practitioners to identify and prospectively address ethically questionable situations. A distinction without distinction is a type of argument in which one word or phrase is preferred over another, but makes no difference to the argument as a whole. It is particularly used when a word or phrase has connotations that a party to an argument would prefer to avoid. You may have heard the phrase “distinction without distinction.” Debaters often resort to this logical error when confronted with an argument they want to evade. This is the world of understatement. And that applies to the dol`s fiduciary rule. Let me explain. Co-author with Landon C. Davis III & Isaac A. McBeth. Financial planning, like helping workers with their day-to-day planning goals, is a priority in employee retention.
Common Estates and Trusts, Legal Ethics and Professional Liability Common A distinction without distinction? An examination of the legal and ethical difference between asset protection and fraudulent transfers under Virginia law.