Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
More than a few attorneys have so far managed to stave off the fateful day when they truly will have to address electronic evidence. Either they have been fortunate or smart in their selection of cases, or someone else has taken care of these issues for them. Or maybe they and opposing counsel have quietly decided that there was really nothing very interesting in those e-mails and that the paper documents will be adequate.
However, that fateful day is arriving quickly as proposed changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure come closer to final approval. (See, www.uscourts.gov/rules/newrules6.html. See also, “U.S. Judicial Conference Approves FRCP e-Discovery Amendments” in the October issue of e-Discovery Law & Strategy.) Although these new rules are not in effect yet, some courts and practitioners are being guided by the proposed changes.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.