Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The local sheriff enforcing a hidden speed trap against out-of-towners is a staple of the television sitcom and of many Hollywood movies. You've seen it: Obnoxious (and some not so obnoxious) vacationers pulled over and forced to pay tickets and steep fines for passing through an unexpected 20 mile-per-hour zone at 50 miles per hour.
The municipality receives consistent revenue from people who don't impose costs to provide legally required services (other than the police and judge, of course). Even better, those passers-through don't vote, so no one even has to listen to their complaints about the unfairness of a sudden drastic reduction in the permitted speed limit, or about strict enforcement of a surprise rule. And, of course, the local court is always conveniently open for the fine to be paid and, once that is taken care of, the previously unsuspecting victim “speeder” is free to continue on his way, with his family ' less the cost of the speeding fine and court costs, and maybe parking while the matter was settled ' until, perhaps, the next town with a speed trap.
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.
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.
Each stage of an attorney's career offers opportunities for a curriculum that addresses both the individual's and the firm's need to drive success.
A defendant in a patent infringement suit may, during discovery and prior to a <i>Markman</i> hearing, compel the plaintiff to produce claim charts, claim constructions, and element-by-element infringement analyses.