Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (4)
- Discrimination (4)
- Civil rights (3)
- Criminal law (3)
- Criminal procedure (3)
-
- Human rights (3)
- Judge (3)
- Plaintiff (3)
- Police (3)
- Section 1983 (3)
- Attorney (2)
- Cases (2)
- Civil law (2)
- Community (2)
- Court (2)
- Defendant (2)
- Ethics (2)
- Justice (2)
- Litigation (2)
- Misconduct (2)
- Supreme court (2)
- ACI (1)
- Act (1)
- Administer (1)
- Adversarial (1)
- Adversarial proceeding (1)
- Age discrimination (1)
- Americans with disabilities act (1)
- Attorney-client privielge; In-house consel; Content of communication; Role of In-House consel; Non-legal functions; Protected Attorney-Client communications discoverable; Business advice; Purpose and content of speech (1)
- Battle of the experts (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Legal Profession
When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It: Unifying The Split In New York's Analysis Of In-House Attorney-Client Privilege, Thomas O'Connor
When You Come To A Fork In The Road, Take It: Unifying The Split In New York's Analysis Of In-House Attorney-Client Privilege, Thomas O'Connor
Journal of Law and Policy
As one surveys the vast and ever-changing landscape of law and litigation, few things stand out as so unanimously exalted and carefully guarded as the privilege protecting attorney-client communications. Yet there is today a surprising lack of uniformity and predictability in the reasoning by which New York courts determine whether a communication made by in-house counsel to its corporate client will – or will not – enjoy the protection of that privilege. Rather than follow a single and predictable analysis to resolve the question, New York courts have oscillated between one line of decisions focusing primarily on the purpose of …
Trending @ Rwu Law: Linda Tappa's Post: An Amazing Summer: Public Interest Law In Texas 11/01/2016, Linda Tappa
Trending @ Rwu Law: Linda Tappa's Post: An Amazing Summer: Public Interest Law In Texas 11/01/2016, Linda Tappa
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: "Getting Proximate": October 22, 2016, Michael Yelnosky
Trending @ Rwu Law: Dean Yelnosky's Post: "Getting Proximate": October 22, 2016, Michael Yelnosky
Law School Blogs
No abstract provided.
The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Scott-Mclaughlin
The Voting Rights Act And The "New And Improved" Intent Test: Old Wine In New Bottles, Randolph M. Scott-Mclaughlin
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams
Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Part Ii, John Williams
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington
Police Misconduct - A Plaintiff's Point Of View, Fred Brewington
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck
Criminal Prosecution And Section 1983, Barry C. Scheck
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Nela Touro Conference 1999 Selected Second Circuit Cases Of Interest, Lawrence Solotoff
Nela Touro Conference 1999 Selected Second Circuit Cases Of Interest, Lawrence Solotoff
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Newsroom: Logan On Kenneth Feinberg 03-12-2016, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Newsroom: Logan On Kenneth Feinberg 03-12-2016, Roger Williams University School Of Law
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
New Rules Of War In The Battle Of The Experts: Amending The Expert Witness Disqualification Test For Conflicts Of Interest, Nina A. Vershuta
Brooklyn Law Review
In civil litigation, the big business of retaining experts has raised concerns about the integrity of the adversarial process and undermined the role that expert testimony plays at trial. Due to a rising demand for expert testimony, it is common for the same expert to testify for opposing clients. When a client hires an expert who has been previously retained by that client’s adversary, a conflict of interest arises. Such experts may share confidential information with their new client to the detriment of the former client—triggering the expert disqualification test for conflicts of interest. Most state and federal courts do …