Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
With the ever-increasing costs of litigation, litigants often take steps to try and control these expenditures. Settling cases early, while not always an attractive option, is nonetheless one way to control these costs. Limiting recovery of attorneys' fees is obviously an approach that may lead to a settlement. Along these lines, defendants, particularly in civil rights cases, have turned to the 'offer of judgment' provision set forth in Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule allows defendants to make offers any time after a complaint is served to cut off 'costs' associated with the litigation. However, a recent case decided by the Untied States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit may have limited the usefulness of 'offers of judgment' and may cause defendants and their counsel to think twice about how and when to use them.
Fees and Costs
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.
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.
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.
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.