Search for: "Stephen Gillers"
Results 221 - 230
of 230
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
15 Mar 2007, 7:00 am
Stephen Gillers of New York University said several statutes involving obstruction of justice and perjury can be applied to cases in which witnesses allegedly mislead lawmakers. [read post]
12 Mar 2007, 6:02 am
Lawprof Stephen Gillers says it's "nonsense," and Ted Olson says "It's making a mountain out of a molehill. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 12:13 pm
[According to] Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School... : "The most critical fact is public acceptance, including the litigants," he said. [read post]
30 Jan 2007, 9:41 am
The NYT story ends with Stephen Gillers of NYU: Stephen Gillers, a professor at New York University Law School, saw this as crucial: "The most critical fact is public acceptance, including the litigants," he said. [read post]
28 Jan 2007, 9:01 pm
"This is prejudicial to the administration of justice," said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. [read post]
14 Jan 2007, 4:43 pm
"This is prejudicial to the administration of justice," said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. [read post]
13 Jan 2007, 5:18 pm
Stimson has come under withering criticism from legal ethics experts like Stephen Gillers, who believes that to "have a senior government official suggesting that representing these people somehow compromises American interests . . . is prejudicial to the administration of justice. [read post]
13 Jan 2007, 5:59 am
"This is prejudicial to the administration of justice," said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. [read post]
2 Jan 2007, 10:07 am
In the comments, legal ethics experts such as Stephen Gillers and Steve Lubet weigh in.) [read post]
18 Aug 2005, 6:20 am
[JURIST] In a Slate article [text] published Wednesday, legal ethicists Stephen Gillers, David Luban and Steven Lubet claim that the White House violated the law when it interviewed Judge John Roberts [JURIST news archive] this spring for the US Supreme Court while he was considering a challenge to US military tribunals in his capacity as a federal appeals court judge. [read post]