Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When a man is in jail, it may be very difficult for him to keep in meaningful contact with his child unless he has the aid of concerned family members or friends. Apart from the emotional problems that may ensue for all parties if visits and phone calls are nonexistent or sporadic, the issue of meaningful contact becomes even more urgent when someone ' the child's mother, another relative or a social services agency ' wants the child freed for adoption.
The situation might seem dire for the inmate who wants to maintain a parental relationship with a child, especially if that child will be an adult if (and when) the incarcerated parent is released from prison. Intuitively, most of us might think that a child whose parent is in prison for an extended period ' particularly if he or she has been convicted of a heinous crime ' might be better off 'moving on' and getting into a stable family situation. The law, however, is not necessarily in line with our gut reactions, as illustrated by a recent case out of New York's Appellate Division, First Department.
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.
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.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
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.