Search for: "Disciplinary Counsel v. Sharp"
Results 1 - 20
of 27
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Jun 2024, 11:43 am
Asking for trouble: Lior Samfiru ended up on the disciplinary end of the spectrum. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 5:01 am
Internal employer and university disciplinary proceedings, generally secret. [read post]
17 Apr 2023, 6:20 am
Representing Disciplinary Counsel. v. [read post]
21 Mar 2023, 4:40 am
” Sharpe Slip op. at 8. [read post]
29 Apr 2021, 4:00 am
In Bassett v Magee, 2018 BCSC 2322, a high conflict case, a spouse wanted opposing counsel disqualified for malicious prosecution. [read post]
6 Dec 2020, 5:06 pm
" It's impossible (I think) to square this with the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Czyzewski v. [read post]
14 Aug 2020, 1:21 pm
The UNGPs present significant opportunities for lawyers who advise business, both internal and external counsel, based on the increasing demand for such advise by clients. [read post]
21 Nov 2019, 7:43 am
In Doe v. [read post]
18 Feb 2019, 4:00 am
This means sending a clear message to members that “sharp practice” by counsel against an SRL on the opposing side will not be tolerated, is not professional, and will be taken seriously as a disciplinary matter. [read post]
2 Sep 2016, 4:00 am
In Bartos v Scottish Legal Complaints Commission 2015 SC 690, at its own instance the court raised a question as to the proper approach to certain provisions in the Legal Profession and Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 2007 (the Act). [read post]
15 Feb 2016, 7:05 am
Lewis v. [read post]
1 Jan 2016, 4:01 am
There is sharp debate as to what to do if Z insists that his lawyer keep the report confidential and not disclose it to anyone. [read post]
17 Jul 2015, 7:39 am
The first is United States v. [read post]
23 Mar 2015, 12:42 am
The charges related to information she gave about army failures in Afghanistan and Iraq, disciplinary proceedings and sexual misconduct among officers. [read post]
6 Sep 2012, 2:55 pm
NLRB’s Challenge To Arizona Constitution’s Secret Ballot Provision In NLRB v. [read post]
30 Oct 2011, 6:25 am
” Lawyers v. [read post]
30 Sep 2011, 4:11 pm
The case is Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. [read post]
28 May 2011, 7:56 am
Sharma v. [read post]
26 May 2011, 7:09 am
Co., Inc. v. [read post]
25 May 2011, 11:46 pm
On January 12, 1994, to distinguish a German reference labeled D1, which required a diffusion-limiting membrane, Abbott's European patent counsel argued that their invention did not require a diffusion-limiting membrane. [read post]
