Search for: "MATTER OF RULES ON DISQUALIFICATION" Results 881 - 900 of 1,155
Sort by Relevance | Sort by Date
RSS Subscribe: 20 results | 100 results
14 Nov 2011, 7:13 pm by Schachtman
  The Circuit noted that meta-analysis was not novel, and that the lack of peer-review was not an automatic disqualification. [read post]
11 Nov 2011, 7:27 pm by Keith Gerver
Military Judge Pohl then states that—before discussing other preliminary matters—it is necessary to inquire into the accused’s need for a translator. [read post]
10 Nov 2011, 12:55 pm by Francis Pileggi
” Since the parties agreed that Attorney was disqualified under Rule 1.9, the Court turned to the issue at hand: whether the disqualification should be imputed to Attorney’s firm under Rule 1.10(c). [read post]
8 Nov 2011, 11:17 am
Having so ruled, the Court granted the petition for writ and vacated the district court’s decision disqualifying F&B. [read post]
4 Nov 2011, 6:55 am
" Upon review, the Court of Appeals overturned the decision as unwarranted and overreaching given the facts of the matter and applicable rules: "The record reveals merely that Alston & Bird has a relationship with Parsons. [read post]
2 Nov 2011, 8:02 am
But a judge disagreed, ruling that the lawyer had "primary responsibility" on the matter, which was enough to trigger the disqualification. [read post]
28 Oct 2011, 3:57 am by Zachary Spilman
§ 504 and 505, which list disqualifications from enlistment. [read post]
23 Oct 2011, 12:52 am
Having already ruled that way in the Bennison case, why have these two members not insisted that the Board has to drop all further consideration of the charges against the Bishop of a similarly autonomous Diocese, for acting autonomously? [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 8:43 am by Employment Lawyers
Generally, you should bring the matter tot he attention of management, and give it a chance to fix the problem. [read post]
12 Oct 2011, 4:00 am by Philip Thomas
The Mississippi Supreme Court's hand-down list on Thursday included the following unanimous ruling: In Re: Union Carbide Corporation, et al.; Smith Circuit Court; LC Case #: 2006-196; Ruling Date: 05/19/2011; Ruling Judge: Eddie Bowen; Disposition: Union Carbide's Petition for Disqualification of Trial Judge Pursuant to M.R.A.P. 48B, for an Immediate Stay of All Proceedings, and for Other Extraordinary Relief is granted. [read post]
11 Oct 2011, 5:01 pm by Douglas Melcher
First, the proposed amendments would amend Rule 1.10 (Imputed Disqualification: General Rule) “to allow ethical screening (without client consent) of lawyers moving laterally between private employers with certain initial notice requirements to former clients. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 10:45 am
It ruled that no confidential information was shared, but that the firm did breach its duty of loyalty. [read post]
4 Oct 2011, 5:43 am by Joel R. Brandes
Although the CPLR is silent on the topic, the Uniform Rules of the Trial Courts and several courts have addressed the discovery of ESI and have provided working guidelines that are useful to judges and practitioners. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 12:44 pm by Alain Leibman
In a recent ruling which represents nothing less than a full-throated defense of the right to advocate for a defendant, the state’s highest court held unenforceable plea agreement provisions which prevented a defense attorney from seeking a lower sentence and from making mitigation arguments at sentencing. [read post]
3 Oct 2011, 8:37 am
For that matter, employers engaging in the practice would do well to do the same. [read post]
29 Sep 2011, 7:33 pm by Ken Shigley
The proposed amendment to the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct on imputed disqualification, also known as Rule 1.10, states: “(d) A lawyer representing a client of a public defender office shall not be disqualified under this rule because of the representation by the office of another client in the same or a substantially related matter unless there is a conflict as determined by Rules 1.7, 1.8(f) or 1.9,” which determine… [read post]
23 Sep 2011, 5:52 am by Lawrence B. Ebert
If there is doubt, it must be resolved in favor of the entity whose information is in jeopardy.andThe majority of this panel, in considering this court’s mandamus authority in local disqualification matters, overlooks the most important: that even in the face of irreparable harm, the district court’s reasonable conclu- sion is within that court’s discretion. [read post]