Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Last month, we discussed some of the legal and ethical issues surrounding access to and use of information available through social networking media. In New York, thanks to a 2010 New York State Bar ethics opinion, attorneys may be confident that the State Bar will consider their behavior ethical if they access information made available to the public, even without permission. However, if the attorney (or his or her agent) uses trickery to gain access to data that the owner allows only certain people to see, the ethical line will be crossed. Ultimately, if an attorney suspects that private data could be useful to the litigation of a family issue, court intervention should be sought.
The reasons for worrying about all of this are fairly obvious. As the City of New York Committee on Professional Ethics observed in its Formal Opinion 2010-2 (discussed in Part One of this article), allegations of infidelity sometimes may indeed be able to be substantiated by postings on Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and their brethren. This is not the only reason for family attorneys to seek access to social networking data. For example, it might prove useful in showing a court that a parent is not fit to retain custody of a child, or should be permitted only supervised visits. Or, as in the recent case of B.M. v. D.M., 31 Misc.3d 1211(A), Slip Copy, 2011 WL 1420917 (Table) N.Y.Sup.,2011. (Sup. Ct., Richmond Cty. 4/7/11) (DiDomenico, J.), evidence available on a social networking website could impact how much ongoing maintenance an ex-spouse should be ordered to pay.
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.
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.
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.