Asset Securitization Submissions And Lawyer Responsibility

This article first examines the nature of legal opinions in securitization. This article then examines, from both positive and negative standpoint, the extent to which the analysis helps to explain the more general problem of securitization lawyers issuing legal opinions that create externalities to the investors and the public.This article next examines the extent to which lawyers should be responsible forfinancial information failures.There is little question that lawyers should notknowingly facilitate these failures.Ambiguity arises, however, where the evolving interface of lawyers and accounters creates overlap in their respective roles. The difficult question is what the responsibility should be? In addition, this article attempts to answer: To what extent should legal experts monitor accounting experts on matters of their expertise?The article compares the responsibilities of securitization lawyers issuing legal opinions and other responsibilities. Finally, the article's suggestion focuses the system instruduction of responsibilities of securitization lawyers, and creates new systems of the responsibilities of securitization lawyers and improves the old systems.The article's analysis focuses the U.S. and Chinense literature of securities and securitization lawyers. Chinese lawyers should have the right to issue opinions that help facilitate securitization transactions where the transaction being opined on is neither illegal nor unethical as a matter of positive law at the time the opinion is issued.The resolution of these new and improved systems not only helps to resolve the issues of legal-opinion giving but also affects the development of Chinese securitization industry.