Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Social media has revolutionized the way people around the world communicate. Judges are certainly not excluded from this phenomenon. While our communication modes evolve, Rule 2.4(B) of the American Bar Association's Model Code of Judicial Conduct (2007) (“Model Code”) still rightly states: “A judge shall not permit family, social, political, financial, or other interests or relationships to influence the judge's judicial conduct or judgment.” (Emphasis added.)
Does this rule address relationships formed on social media? More specifically, is it permissible for a judge to become friends on a social media site with lawyers who appear before the judge? The comments to the rule do not address the issue, and there is disagreement among ethics committees in the various states with respect to this specific question.
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
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
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.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.