Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The LPA replaced the former enduring powers of attorney (EPA) which were narrower in scope. [1] Their purpose is to meet the needs of those who can see a time when they will lack capacity to look after their own affairs. There are two types of LPA: health and welfare, and property and financial affairs; either or both may be created. [2]
The joint defense privilege, or common-interest rule, is an extension of attorney–client privilege. [1] Under "common interest" or "joint defense" doctrine, parties with shared interest in actual or potential litigation against a common adversary may share privileged information without waiving their right to assert attorney–client privilege. [2]
Twenty-eight states filed joint or individual lawsuits (including 26 states engaged in a joint action) to strike down the ACA's individual mandate. [4] [5] In a press release, the Attorneys General for several states indicated their primary basis for the challenge was a violation of state sovereignty. Their release repeated the claim ...
Negligence by the attorney, A loss or injury to the client caused by the negligence, and; Financial loss or injury to the client. To satisfy the third element, legal malpractice requires proof of what would have happened had the attorney not been negligent; that is, "but for" the attorney's negligence ("but for" causation). [3]
Joint employment is the sharing of control and supervision of an employee's activity among two or more business entities. At present, no single definition of joint employment exists. Instead, various employment laws define situations in which joint employment may occur with respect to that law.
Unbundled legal services, also known as limited scope representation and discrete task representation, is a method of legal representation in which an attorney and client agree to limit the scope of the attorney’s involvement in a lawsuit or other legal action, leaving responsibility for those other aspects of the case to the client in order to save the client money and give them more control.
The problem is then that evidence of an inspector's motive does not necessarily show that the inspector induced a prosecution that would not have been otherwise pressed. There is furthermore a long-standing presumption that a prosecutor has legitimate grounds for the actions he takes, supported by the Court's position that "judicial intrusion ...
The doctrine of common purpose, common design, joint enterprise, joint criminal enterprise or parasitic accessory liability [1] is a common law legal doctrine that imputes criminal liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all reasonable results from that enterprise.