Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The California State Bar is throwing open the door to out-of-state lawyers, but strict conditions and high costs have some worried about tripping over the welcome mat.
On September 11, the State Bar Board of Governors, meeting in Fresno, CA, approved new rules that let in-house counsel and legal services lawyers practice in California without taking the state's bar exam. The rules, which go into effect November 15, establish registration requirements and set fees aimed at helping cover the expense of running the programs.
Other rules adopted on that same day revise the application standards for out-of-state lawyers who are already allowed to practice in the state under certain conditions, such as arbitrators and attorneys practicing pro hac vice on particular cases with local counsel. Filing fees for such lawyers went up from $50 to $250.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?