Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
With Americans spending nearly a quarter of their time on social media websites and new social media sites, like Google Buzz, which already accumulated more than 25 million users before even launching, it is no surprise that social media is changing the way we litigate. Both in-house and outside counsel can use social media to investigate opposing parties, potential witnesses and even jurors. In addition, corporate counsel face the unique challenges of having to determine when the use of social media at or after work violates company policies and may even amount to a crime. A growing number of sanctions cases place as much burden on in-house as outside counsel, forcing corporate counsel to become experts in this emerging area of technology that is not only changing workplace norms, but also the way they litigate.
New Ethical Dilemmas
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.