Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Part Two of a Three-Part Article
Editor’s Note: In last month’s newsletter, the author began discussion of matrimonial client “conflict checks” — the exercise attorneys must go through with each new potential client, to make sure that the representation will not conflict with work the attorney is doing or has done for a current or former client. But the inquiry does not generally stop there, because Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.18 makes clear that a lawyer can be conflicted out of a case due to contact with a former potential client, whom the attorney never represented but who consulted with the attorney or otherwise had significant contact him or her. It helps attorneys attempting to comply with Rule 1.18 to know how courts and disciplinary authorities have applied it. Here, the author continues his discussion of those subjects the Model Rule does not cover.
*May exclude premium content
By Matthew A. Feigin
This article is intended to help practitioners by warning of mistakes the author has seen matrimonial attorneys make in applying federal tax law.
By Laurence J. Cutler and Alyssa M. Clemente
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
According to the authors, using the holding of recent New Jersey Supreme Court case Bisbing v. Bisbing as a model, the clear and current trend throughout the United States that when a custodial parent is seeking to relocate outside of the state with a child, the best interest of the child standard should apply.
By David Bliven
This article addresses some deficiencies in reviewing separation or settlement agreements done in divorce cases, and recommends various clauses that practitioners may implement in their own practices.
Analysis of a case in which the Eighth Circuit reversed the confirmation by the Board of Immigration Appeals of a deportation order because the Immigration Judge’s finding of a fraudulent marriage was not based on proper evidence.