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
Specifically, the court will determine whether attorney-client privilege covers communications involving both legal and non-legal advice when the communication was created for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. If so, the tort claim must be litigated before the National Labor Relations Board, not a state court.
At the heart of the contest privilege the nature of the communications between the unnamed law firm and their client, in which the law firm provided legal advice and prepared tax returns (non-legal advice) for the client. Glacier brought a tort claim against the Teamsters for the loss of concrete. In Santos-Zacaria v.
In the most high-profile case of the week, the Court addressed the scope of the attorney-client privilege when an attorney provides both legal and non-legal advice. Financial Oversight and Management Board for PuertoRico v. The Ohio Adjutant General’s Department v. Centro de Periodismo Investigativo, Inc.:
A story in Houston has everything you would want in a legal controversy: a murder, a mysterious figure known only as “D”, a missing Bengal tiger named India and even Carole Baskin of Tiger King fame. He is facing both criminal and potential tort liability for the tiger incident. Cuevas’ bond now is revoked.
Arguably, the debt contravenes domestic law, although the government may obtain legal opinions affirming its validity. We have seen this pattern in Venezuela, Mozambique, Ukraine, Zambia, Liberia, PuertoRico, and in other sovereign and sub-sovereign borrowers.
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.
Let's personalize your content