Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Social networking (aka “social media”) is taking over the world. Just look at the latest statistics:
That is just Facebook, but there are many more social-networking sites, for example, Twitter, LinkedIn, MySpace, YouTube and blog.com, and this list is not all-inclusive.
Not only is social networking taking over how we live, work, communicate and “socialize,” it is changing how lawyers litigate and practice law. What is no surprise is that, as usual, technology and society are light years ahead of the legal world. Many lawyers lack the knowledge and guidance on the discoverability and use of social-networking content in civil litigation and at the workplace. Following is a short discussion of the use of social networking in the work place and the courtroom.
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.