This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
As more legal teams embrace this technology, state bars have begun to provide frameworks to guide its implementation. For example, in November 2023, the State Bar of California's Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct issued guidance for attorneys looking to use the technology.
Like the district court, the Ninth Circuit rejected an argument that the regulations were a “project” subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because the rules could impact the environment by increasing “deadhead” trips to and from the airport. Bernhardt , No. 1:20-cv-00056 (D.D.C. Union of Concerned Scientists v.
The records included spreadsheets tracking and analyzing comments, draft ANPRM fact sheets, meeting agendas, and emails and meeting invitations regarding CEQ’s process for managing comments. The federal district court for the Northern District of California held a case management conference in City of Oakland v. 3:18-cv-00113 (W.D.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 99,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
California 
52 
Let's personalize your content