Search for: "Brayton Purcell LLP"
Results 1 - 13
of 13
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
20 Jan 2012, 12:53 pm
Brayton-Purcell, LLP (8/17/11) 198 Cal.App.4th 582, the Court of Appeal held that a law school graduate who was not licensed to practice law but who worked for a law firm and performed tasks customarily performed by junior attorneys was exempt as a learned professional. [read post]
20 Aug 2011, 10:23 am
Brayton-Purcell LLP and the opinion is here.SHAW VALENZA LLP - http://shawvalenza.com [read post]
6 Aug 2009, 10:59 pm
-based law firm's copyrighted website ( Brayton Purcell LLP ). [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 9:55 pm
Brayton-Purcell, LLP (8/17/11) --- Cal.App.4th ----, 2011 WL 3594015, holding that a law school graduate who was not licensed to practice law but who worked for a law firm and performed tasks customarily performed by junior attorneys was exempt as a learned professional. [read post]
7 Oct 2011, 9:30 am
Brayton-Purcell, LLP, No. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 11:06 am
A Northern California lawyer sued former employer Brayton Purcell LLP, a personal injury practice, for not paying him overtime when he worked there as a clerk until 2009, before he was certified by the bar association. [read post]
25 Aug 2011, 2:19 pm
The former law clerk, Matthew Zalesko-Barrett, sued Brayton Purcell LLP alleging that the law firm denied him overtime, waiting time penalties, and rest and meal breaks from August 2007 through June 2009. [read post]
20 Jun 2007, 8:15 pm
In Brayton Purcell LLP v. [read post]
19 Aug 2011, 10:04 am
Brayton-Purcell LLP and the decision is here. [read post]
23 Aug 2009, 8:13 am
" And here, the defendant was targeting only San Diego clients.The case is Brayton Purcell LLP v. [read post]
16 Aug 2009, 11:28 am
” And here, the defendant was targeting only San Diego clients.The case is Brayton Purcell LLP v. [read post]
14 Jan 2012, 6:19 am
Brayton Purcell, LLP v. [read post]
27 May 2012, 7:23 am
The Defendants did not challenge general jurisdiction over them, so the Court employed the “three prong test to determine whether a court can exercise specific jurisdiction over a defendant” first used by the Ninth Circuit in Brayton Purcell LLP v. [read post]