Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It's been quite an eventful month since we reported on the hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee on SOPA (Stop Online Privacy Act) (see, “SOPA Update: The House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearings While Opposition Mounts”, in the January 2012 issue, http://bit.ly/x3QdpF).
Fueled by Twitter and Facebook postings, the public became more aware of SOPA and its sibling Senate legislation, PIPA (Protect IP Act) (see, “Companies and Lobbyists on Both Sides of SOPA,” in the December 2011 issue, http://bit.ly/u1PxKZ) and took to e-mail and old-fashioned telephones to let their Congresspersons know how they felt. Whether those who sent messages read the Bills or knew what they really said, the word was out: these Bills would kill the Internet as we know it.
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.