Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
It seems obvious: If you want to know about a litigant's mental state or a child's psychological needs, ask the litigant's or child's therapist. Wrong! There are good reasons not to confuse treating-therapists with expert witnesses. The testimony of treating-therapists rarely contributes to the litigation and calling on the treating-therapist will usually destroy therapy. Here are some reasons why, in my opinion:
Treating-Therapists Are Poor Witnesses
Treating-therapists' testimony is seldom probative, often irrelevant and prejudicial, and it is likely to be poorly presented. Unlike an expert witness, therapists have only the information patients give them. They rarely check against other sources; they generally remain allied with patients by only doubting patients' reports under special circumstances. Basically, all they can testify to is what the patient thinks. Furthermore, therapy is designed to let patients try on various attitudes and ideas, so patients often express strong opinions to their therapists that they would not stick by in real life. Patients often want to please their therapists and may also express views that mirror the therapist's. This is particularly a problem when it comes to children's custody wishes. The therapist may unwittingly be getting information designed to please him or her rather than reflecting the child's own ideas and opinions.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.