Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
I asked them which one of them would like their surgeon to do only an adequate job; which automobile mechanic should do “only an adequate job” repairing their car?
Attorney misconduct is unethical or illegal conduct by an attorney. Attorney misconduct may include: conflict of interest, overbilling, false or misleading statements, knowingly pursuing frivolous and meritless lawsuits, concealing evidence, abandoning a client, failing to disclose all relevant facts, arguing a position while neglecting to disclose prior law which might counter the argument ...
By law, lawyers are often required to keep confidential anything on the representation of a client. The duty of confidentiality is much broader than the attorney–client evidentiary privilege , which only covers communications between the attorney and the client.
1 Zealous representation? What's that doing in the template? 2 comments. 2 Duty to Opponent & Duty of Agency. 1 comment. Toggle the table of contents.
The argument over the "Spirit of the Law" vs. the "Letter of the Law" was part of early Jewish dialogue as well. [3] The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25–37) is one of the New Testament texts to address this theme. The passage concerns a dialogue between Jesus and an "expert in the law" or "lawyer".
The representation must be clear, unambiguous, and not have any relevant qualification. The expectation must be induced by the behaviour of the public authority. The representation must have been made by someone who had actual or apparent authority. The representation must be applicable to the aggrieved parties.
At common law, this was the name of a mixed action (springing from the earlier personal action of ejectione firmae) which lay for the recovery of the possession of land, and for damages for the unlawful detention of its possession. The action was highly fictitious, being in theory only for the recovery of a term for years, and brought by a ...
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that criminal defendants have a constitutional right to refuse counsel and represent themselves in state criminal proceedings.