Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- ABA (1)
- American Bar Association (1)
- Armstrong v. McAlpin (1)
- Baugh v. Judicial Inquiry & Review Commission (1)
- Bauunternehmung v. United States (1)
-
- Bridges v. California (1)
- FHA (1)
- Federal Housing Administration (1)
- First Amendment Coalition v. Judicial Inquiry & Review Board (1)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1)
- JIRC (1)
- Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission (1)
- Kesselhaut v. United States (1)
- Landmark Communications Inc. v. Virginia (1)
- Model Rules (1)
- Model Rules of Professional Conduct (1)
- Richmond Newspape's Inc. v. Virginia (1)
- Virginia Code of Professional Responsibility (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Unlocking The Chamber Doors: Limiting Confidentiality In Proceedings Before The Virginia Judicial Inquiry And Review Commission, Brian R. Pitney
Unlocking The Chamber Doors: Limiting Confidentiality In Proceedings Before The Virginia Judicial Inquiry And Review Commission, Brian R. Pitney
University of Richmond Law Review
In a Mississippi case, a judge imposed and collected criminal fines, then willfully and fraudulently documented the case as dismissed, keeping the money for himself. In California, the Commission of Judicial Qualifications removed a judge for prodding an attorney with a "dildo," grabbing a court commissioner by his testicles in a public hallway, and habitually making offensive sexual remarks at his office. A Massachusetts judge received public censure for making derogatory and obscene references to members of the bench and bar, becoming intoxicated and urinating in public, and setting unusually high bail for African-American defendants. After a Federal Bureau of …
Building Chinese Walls In Virginia: Should Virginia Recognize The Chinese Wall Defense To Vicarious Disqualification?, C. Randolph Sullivan
Building Chinese Walls In Virginia: Should Virginia Recognize The Chinese Wall Defense To Vicarious Disqualification?, C. Randolph Sullivan
University of Richmond Law Review
A Chinese wall is essentially a screening mechanism set up within an institution to act as an "impermeable barrier to intrafirm exchange of confidential information." To prevent inadvertent "leakage" of confidential information, a number of precautions may be taken, including the establishment of organizational and physical structures designed to separate those who possess information from those who should not have it." Although of relatively new use in the legal profession, this type of "wall" is not new. Banks and securities firms, in an effort to protect their clients' financial confidences, routinely erect Chinese walls.