Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Buried deep within the 69-page superseding indictment in the KPMG tax fraud case lies a development with the potential to chill the assertion of the attorney-client privilege by defense attorneys in criminal conspiracy cases. In the conspiracy count in United States v. Stein et al., S1 05 Cr. 888 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 19, 2005), the wrongful assertion of the attorney-client privilege has been charged as a central aspect of the crime itself, both as part of the means and methods of the conspiracy and as an overt act in furtherance. This aggressive charging decision may cause some members of the defense bar to think twice about asserting the privilege in close cases — even where it is being asserted legitimately — for fear that their claim of privilege may overreach, thus inadvertently implicating them in the underlying conspiracy.
There is no dispute that the attorney-client privilege is one of the pillars of the U.S. legal system. The benefit of the privilege is that it encourages “full and frank communications between attorneys and their clients,” Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383 (1981), enabling lawyers to counsel their clients better and promoting compliance with the law through such counseling. In the criminal context, the privilege allows clients to speak to their attorneys with confidence that their words will not later be disclosed to prosecutors and used against them.
Under Attack
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.
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.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?