Search for: "MATTER OF RULES ON DISQUALIFICATION"
Results 201 - 220
of 1,130
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
11 Apr 2010, 5:48 pm
disqualifications are imputed to everyone at the lateral’s new place of employment, we are enforcing an expensive rule. [read post]
2 Jun 2011, 7:12 am
Wisconsin Supreme Court rules non-client party can bring disqualification motion -- "...a nonclient party – one who is not a former or current client of opposing counsel – could have standing to move for disqualification of opposing counsel... [read post]
11 Jun 2018, 6:40 am
Disqualification. [read post]
1 Apr 2021, 12:59 pm
Matter of Paul Mazzotte v Thomas DiNapoli, as State Comptroller Petitioner was a correction officer for over 20 years. [read post]
10 Jun 2010, 7:59 am
More recently, the ABA commentary on the newly-revised Model Rule 1.10 argues that imputed disqualification should not apply to paralegals and other non-lawyer personnel. [read post]
30 Nov 2010, 6:37 am
Perhaps the court meant that the disqualification matter is distinct from the underlying proceeding and the judge is a party for purposes of what the court considered that collateral matter. [read post]
19 Jun 2023, 7:14 am
‘From this record, the Court finds that any advice or assistance Defendants sought was for On-Site, not themselves individually, and that it would have been unreasonable for Defendants to believe that Hardin Thompson represented them individually in this matter (if they believed that Hardin Thompson represented them individually at all in this matter, which has not been established).'” “Leon Cosgrove Beats DQ Bid In Fla. [read post]
6 Mar 2024, 11:19 am
He is ready to rule. [read post]
6 May 2007, 6:17 am
District Court, en banc, had ruled that the standards applicable to the evaluation of application for membership in the Bar by individuals convicted of felonies should also apply to applications for readmission.The case involving admissions to the Bar, In the Matter of S.G.P., 428 F.Supp. 2d 389 (D. [read post]
15 Sep 2022, 6:14 am
The bankruptcy court denied the disqualification bid. [read post]
20 Oct 2010, 3:23 pm
This most recent issue concerns a disqualification attempt, calling out a lawyer who worked for a firm that represented the plaintiff in the same matter (Morgan Lewis), prior to joining the firm representing the defendant (Robins Kaplan). [read post]
19 Dec 2017, 3:15 am
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has ruled that the Section 2(a) bar on registering immoral or scandalous marks is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech. [read post]
2 Dec 2019, 12:35 pm
But the chief justice does not have to play this role, and he is not the final word on matters when he does. [read post]
27 Jun 2012, 7:07 am
District Court judge in Boston has ruled. [read post]
28 Dec 2023, 9:52 am
After all, the office is not an intermediate court and it has a ruling that Trump is disqualified as a matter of law. [read post]
16 Feb 2009, 10:28 am
The rule and comments suggest that disqualification is still possible, but do not -- as far as I can tell -- indicate that disqualification may be appropriate simply because the lateral lawyer was so heavily involved, as opposed to disqualification based on deliberate misconduct or negligent handling of confidential information. [read post]
2 Dec 2021, 10:45 am
” “The city sees the latter argument as insufficient in part because of an ABA rule, which says that a conflict stays with the firm, even if attorneys who worked on the conflicted matter(s) leave the firm. [read post]
17 Apr 2016, 10:01 pm
As explained in Comment 4, the disqualification of a former government employee is limited "to matters involving a specific party or parties" (ABA Model Rules of Prof Conduct rule 1.11, Comment 4 [2006]). [read post]
31 Dec 2013, 4:00 am
Thus, the court concluded, “disqualification is required. [read post]
8 Dec 2009, 1:27 pm
Rule 1.9 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct provides that "a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related mater in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. [read post]
