@misc{Modrzejewska_Klaudia_Glosa_2024,
 author={Modrzejewska, Klaudia},
 copyright={Copyright by Autorzy, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, Wydawnictwo „Szermierz” sp. z o.o., 2024},
 address={Wrocław},
 howpublished={online},
 year={2024},
 publisher={Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego},
 publisher={Wydawnictwo "Szermierz" sp. z o.o.},
 language={pol},
 abstract={The commentary presents the problem of not specifying the disciplinary tort that violated the Code of Ethics for Attorney at Law. The overly general formulation of unlawfulness characteristics is the reason for the inability to classify behavior as a prohibited act. The Supreme Court emphasized that the description of the alleged act in the proceedings must be very precise so that it is obvious what actions are allowed and which are prohibited. The aim of the commentary is to draw attention to the issue of standards of proceedings, in particular to the precise definition of a criminal act},
 type={text},
 title={Glosa do wyroku Sądu Najwyższego z dnia 22 czerwca 2021 roku (sygn. II DK 56/21)},
 doi={https://doi.org/10.19195/1733-5779.47.8},
 keywords={administrative law, disciplinary liability, the profession of an Attorney at Law, the Code of Ethics for Attorney at Law},
}