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
The latest flurry of litigation follows a series of class-action cases against Ameriprise Financial, LPL Financial, Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley regarding their cash sweep programs. Commentary from almost a decade ago suggests they won’t.
In the absence of oversight boards and civil litigation, criminal charges against prosecutors and ethics board disciplinary measures are the only means of incentivizing appropriate prosecutorial actions. NewYork State initiated this practice in 2017, and the requirement was added to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in 2020.
In 2020, the cancelation of parades and the reduction of travel has led to a very different legal profile of holiday mishaps and malfeasance. The litigation over last year’s lettuce recall has only just started due to the statute of limitations. The result is a horn of plenty for litigators. Some 1,800 ate the catered meal.
Under the federal law creating the Office of Special Counsel, Dellinger could be removed by the president from his job only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. It is not related to DOJ special counsels like Jack Smith. The email dismissing Dellinger did not cite any reason for his removal. to challenge his firing.
1211(b), which allows the President to remove the Special Counsel only for specific reasons (inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance). The case has gone through multiple rounds of litigation, including a prior en banc decision by the Ninth Circuit, a remand from the U.S. Dellinger argued that his termination violated 5 U.S.C.
Under the federal law creating the agency, the president can only remove the head of the office, who serves a five-year term, for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office. Hampton Dellinger was appointed to serve as the head of the Office of Special Counsel in 2024 by then-President Joe Biden. declined to intervene. Acting U.S.
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