Come on. This is just trolling.Right. It's just a natural continuation of already-established principles. Opening the door the other way ends up with employers having to pay for your travel time to and from your shift, how long you take at home to get ready for the job, etc.
I was just coming to post that.Possibly the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless you're paid to enforce the law.
Jimmy uses Gmail.Rambo based on your knowledge of secure email and e-privacy, I've learned that email harvesting can break attyclient privilege. What email programs/groups don't "harvest" (the buzzword I took from the conversation), thus basically maintaining security?
ie; is using Gmail as the basis for communications as a sole practitioner secure enough to maintain privilege in a fight? JimmyRustler - what have you been using on your own?
Ah, well in reality, gmail can see everything you send between you and the client. Of course, so could any host. What I think you're wondering about is whether they'd be required to turn that information over upon subpoena?Yeah, not discussing email-addresses; moreso email companies reading and being able to see emails sent through their servers. Just the word the guy I was talking to used.
Is this a conflict of interest? Should this attorney/firm recuse his/herself?
Scenario: a group starts a corporation and uses a certain law firm. Now one member leaves and is exposed to litigation by the corporation, and that member has met, knows, and has exposed private information to this firm. So, what do you think?
My rudimentary knowledge says yes, but I'm also taking the MPRE in March. What does "is exposed to litigation" mean? Was a suit brought by the corporation against someone represented by the offshoot firm?
Probably not, unless the firm directly represented the individual member in some capacity. If the firm's representation was limited to representation of the corporation then the firm can continue to represent the corporation.
Now, if the firm provided ANY individual representation of the members then it would be disqualified. So even if a member came and asked for a pre-nup or will to be drafted for the individual member that could be cause for conflict. Most corporate firms are smart enough to avoid this behaviour.
The Chinese Wall thing is generally frowned upon by Judges, as it's just a bullshit smokescreen in 8/10 cases.
I'm more interested in what's going to happen to the people who've been convicted based upon this evidence, as well as the cases themselves. They going to be retried? Overturned? Dismissed?Hair analysis is being debunked, or at least discredited just like fingerprints have been, bite mark analysis, footprint analysis, and lie detector tests. Heaven forbid police have to do actual police work.
They going to be retried? Overturned? Dismissed?
Right, which is why I thought this was interesting. I mean, this is the highest domestic law enforcement agency in the country outright saying "we lied." How does any defense attorney worth their salt not run with that?Given the effort that a lot of prosecutor's offices go to in opposing the re-trial of prisoners in cases where it's pretty damned clear that they are not guilty, it's very hard to see that many "hair analysis" cases would be re-tried, let alone overturned.
FBI admits flaws in hair analysis over decades - The Washington Post
Zé Ferreira I'm curious to get your take on this. Seems like it would be right up your ally. Too bad our resident drunken defense disaster isn't around. I'd bet good money he'd be fire and brimstone about this shit.
Right, which is why I thought this was interesting. I mean, this is the highest domestic law enforcement agency in the country outright saying "we lied." How does any defense attorney worth their salt not run with that?
How do you see this one going down? I read earlier that the justices were saying "they weren't sure they wanted to force the states into this issue because the climate is already changing by itself."http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2014/14-556-q1
Oral Arguments this morning in Obergefell v. Hodges, addressing Equal Protections implications in a national gay marriage question
How do you see this one going down? I read earlier that the justices were saying "they weren't sure they wanted to force the states into this issue because the climate is already changing by itself."