Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the high-conflict divorce, try as it may, a court has little to offer minor children caught in Mom and Dad's crossfire. Regrettably, in many, if not most, instances, the more resources directed toward high conflict divorces, the more opportunity for escalating the conflict, unintended though it may be. One of the reasons for this entrenching of positions seems to be the identification of a specific role with its concomitant stance for everyone involved.
Battling spouses by definition must be diametrically opposed to whatever the other thinks is a good idea or considers fair, reasonable or in the best interest of the children. This is a basic tenet of high-conflict divorce. Enter divorce litigators. This spousal polarity is reinforced, if not out-and-out encouraged, by their legal posturing and advice to “shoot-for-the-moon.” Very few divorce litigators worry about what's fair and reasonable, especially if it's moneyed high conflict. Now come the kids. The children have, hands down, the toughest lot. Adversarial divorce places children squarely in the middle of the fray with no cover.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.