Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
We here at Law Journal Newsletters pride ourselves on providing the best-possible, most useful content for our readers. We do this by keeping in constant contact with our Boards of Editors, almost all of whom are attorneys who are experts in their various fields. We talk to readers who call and e-mail. We devour other legal publications (since ALM is our parent company, we have access to the best legal dailies and magazines in the business).And yet, we rarely hear from YOU, our readers and subscribers.Every now and then, we send out a Reader Survey and ask you what you want us to cover, what you want to read in our pages, what you find helpful'and not helpful. Only a handful of you respond. Given my own tendency to delete or throw away such surveys, I'm not surprised. We are all too busy, all buried under a single day's deadlines, not to mention the ones for tomorrow, next week, next month. Attending a child's Little League game or school play becomes a challenge worthy of a congressional hearing. So who wants to fill out a survey? I get it'the problem is, we haven't GOT it.So consider this Blog an open invitation from Law Journal Newsletters to you. Let's start a dialog. We really DO want to know if you don't like something in one of our newsletters. We really DO want to know what you want more of, or less of, in our pages. We want to know if we are missing something. We want to know if we are overdoing something. Should we cover more or less pharmaceutical news in Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy? Do we have too much or too little Valuation information in The Matrimonial Strategist? Is Internet Law & Strategy filling your needs, or should we get more technical? Should there be more charts in Accounting and Financial Planning for Law firms, or less?Are we helping you keep your eye on all the trends in your practice areas? That's what we are here to do, and despite the fact that we have renowned experts writing and serving on our Boards, that does not mean we have provided everything you need, something we can only judge if we hear from you.So we invited your comments. Write early and often. We promise an answer, and we promise to listen. Don't be a stranger! E-mail: [email protected].
We here at Law Journal Newsletters pride ourselves on providing the best-possible, most useful content for our readers. We do this by keeping in constant contact with our Boards of Editors, almost all of whom are attorneys who are experts in their various fields. We talk to readers who call and e-mail. We devour other legal publications (since ALM is our parent company, we have access to the best legal dailies and magazines in the business).And yet, we rarely hear from YOU, our readers and subscribers.Every now and then, we send out a Reader Survey and ask you what you want us to cover, what you want to read in our pages, what you find helpful'and not helpful. Only a handful of you respond. Given my own tendency to delete or throw away such surveys, I'm not surprised. We are all too busy, all buried under a single day's deadlines, not to mention the ones for tomorrow, next week, next month. Attending a child's Little League game or school play becomes a challenge worthy of a congressional hearing. So who wants to fill out a survey? I get it'the problem is, we haven't GOT it.So consider this Blog an open invitation from Law Journal Newsletters to you. Let's start a dialog. We really DO want to know if you don't like something in one of our newsletters. We really DO want to know what you want more of, or less of, in our pages. We want to know if we are missing something. We want to know if we are overdoing something. Should we cover more or less pharmaceutical news in Medical Malpractice Law & Strategy? Do we have too much or too little Valuation information in The Matrimonial Strategist? Is Internet Law & Strategy filling your needs, or should we get more technical? Should there be more charts in Accounting and Financial Planning for Law firms, or less?Are we helping you keep your eye on all the trends in your practice areas? That's what we are here to do, and despite the fact that we have renowned experts writing and serving on our Boards, that does not mean we have provided everything you need, something we can only judge if we hear from you.So we invited your comments. Write early and often. We promise an answer, and we promise to listen. Don't be a stranger! E-mail: [email protected].
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.