Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Proposed franchise legislation featured prominently in “An Agenda for Justice,” a report recently released by the British Columbia Branch of the Canadian Bar Association (“CBA”). The document, released on Feb. 5, 2013, in advance of the upcoming provincial election, presents a series of judicial and legislative reforms and recommendations aimed at improving access to justice for all British Columbians.
This was not the first such suggestion. In the fall of 2012, the British Columbia Law Institute (“BCLI”), a law reform research organization, announced the commencement of a project to examine whether there is a need for franchise legislation in British Columbia and, if so, what provisions any such legislation should have in order to provide legal protection for franchisees operating in British Columbia. The project was finalized, and the Consultation Paper on a Franchise Act for British Columbia (the “Consultation Paper”) was made public on April 2, 2013.
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.