Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In litigation, the truth does not always matter. What does matter is the persuasiveness of the evidence. All other things being equal, if your adversary's testimony seems more credible to the judge or jury than your testimony, your adversary will likely win, no matter who's telling the truth.
In a typical case, Widget-buyer Mr. Jones testifies that Mr. Smith, the Widgets Corporation sales manager, told him that if he put his order in now, the price would be discounted by 10%. Mr. Smith, on the other hand, testifies that was not the deal at all. Rather, he says, it was agreed that the discount was to kick in only if Mr. Jones ordered at least one million widgets, which never happened. $300,000 is in question. Which side do you find in favor of, and on what basis?
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
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.