Search for: "IN RE RULES OF THE SUPREME COURT FOR MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUC"
Results 121 - 140
of 162
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
6 Mar 2012, 7:11 am
Some call it Minimum Continuing Legal Education while others label it Mandatory Continuing Legal Education. [read post]
6 Jan 2012, 9:02 pm
(Redistricting cases bypass the usual route from a District Court to a federal Circuit Court, going instead directly to the Supreme Court for what amounts to mandatory review.) [read post]
12 Dec 2011, 5:11 am
Maintaining Competence [6] To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, engage in continuing study and education and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject. [read post]
29 Nov 2011, 7:07 pm
Continuing legal education is fungible. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 9:15 pm
Supreme Court ruled against Arizona’s total ban on lawyer advertising because it violated the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment. [read post]
9 Nov 2011, 3:25 am
That’s from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinion Hutchison ex rel. [read post]
24 Oct 2011, 3:18 am
K 2400 A6 M36 2007 Mandatory rules in international arbitration / George A. [read post]
31 Aug 2011, 10:27 am
In particular, because of the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in AT&T Mobility LLC v. [read post]
19 Apr 2011, 11:09 am
Cunningham, Rhetoric versus Reality in Arbitration Jurisprudence: How the Supreme Court Flaunts and Flunks Contracts (and Why Contracts Teachers Need Not Teach the Cases) Abstract: Supreme Court rhetoric about the role of contracts and contract law in arbitration jurisprudence differs sharply from the reality of its applications. [read post]
12 Apr 2011, 12:55 pm
The Friedrich court was referring to In Re Bates, High Court of Justice, Family Division, Royal Courts of London, No. [read post]
11 Apr 2011, 9:38 am
If re-elected, I would address these issues as follows: Petition the Supreme Court to decrease Bar dues. [read post]
5 Feb 2011, 10:08 am
Justice BhandariThe Supreme Court in State of Uttranchal v. [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
Someone will go seriously old skool and play Cumming v Danson or Say v Smith, the quiet one in the corner will drone on about how everyone else always forgets AG Securities, there is always an argument about Bruton, but (and if there is a point to this introduction, this is it) there is now a new giant on the scene, one judgment to rule them all and in its 9 strong constitution bind them - the Supreme Court decision in Pinnock (you might like to check out our note on the… [read post]
4 Nov 2010, 12:53 am
Someone will go seriously old skool and play Cumming v Danson or Say v Smith, the quiet one in the corner will drone on about how everyone else always forgets AG Securities, there is always an argument about Bruton, but (and if there is a point to this introduction, this is it) there is now a new giant on the scene, one judgment to rule them all and in its 9 strong constitution bind them - the Supreme Court decision in Pinnock (you might like to check out our note on the… [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 9:35 am
The settlement, approved by the federal court in Boise, Idaho on October 1, covers a range of violations beginning as early as 1991 and ending in 2009. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 9:35 am
The settlement, approved by the federal court in Boise, Idaho on October 1, covers a range of violations beginning as early as 1991 and ending in 2009. [read post]
18 Oct 2010, 9:35 am
The settlement, approved by the federal court in Boise, Idaho on October 1, covers a range of violations beginning as early as 1991 and ending in 2009. [read post]
10 Oct 2010, 4:29 pm
Hoff Curtis 100 Main Street, PO Box 1124 Burlington, VT 05401 Office telephone: (802) 864-6400 Fax: 802-860-1565 email: rcassidy@hoffcurtis.com Blog: http://onlawyering.com/ www.hoffcurtis.com October 10, 2010 Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Board 2418 Airport Rd, Ste 2 Barre, VT 05641 Via email to: JUD-AttyLicensing@state.vt.us Re: Request for Comments on the Vermont Professionalism Rule Dear Judge Carroll and… [read post]
11 Aug 2010, 9:19 pm
It's the fault of the Supreme Court for using this reasoning in Marsh v. [read post]
5 Aug 2010, 1:07 pm
Finding it would serve no public purpose, the master recommended that none be re-tried.[13] That meant 4,500 cases of children appearing in that court from 2003 to 2008.[14] On October 29, 2009, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed. [read post]
