Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
Overbilling is a part of many fraud audit infrastructures employed by large companies. [12] Computer programs and software is often used to screen a company's finances to check for overbilling or symptoms of overbilling. [13] Overbilling has been the focus of several infamous scandals, such as the Worldcom scandal [14] and the bankruptcy of W ...
He may be either charged with a separate offense for every technical criminal transaction in which he participated, or the prosecutor may fragment a single criminal transaction into numerous component offenses. 'Vertical' overcharging is charging a single offense at a higher level than the circumstances of the case seem to warrant."
The kind of intentional overbilling a former Kirkland & Ellis lawyer recently admitted is rare, experts say. But when it does occur, it can be seen as another consequence of law firms ...
California Penal Code section 15 defines a "crime" or "public offense" as "an act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it, and to which is annexed, upon conviction, any of the following punishments: Death; Imprisonment; Fine; Removal from office; or,
Volumes of the Thomson West annotated version of the California Penal Code; the other popular annotated version is Deering's, which is published by LexisNexis. The Penal Code of California forms the basis for the application of most criminal law, criminal procedure, penal institutions, and the execution of sentences, among other things, in the American state of California.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, 582 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant on claims brought by plaintiffs who are not California residents and did not suffer their alleged injury in California. [1]
This case history arose in relation to Cal. Civ. Code §1668, a statute that states "All contracts which have for their object, directly or indirectly, to exempt anyone from responsibility for his own fraud, or willful injury to the person or property of another, or violation of law, whether willful or negligent, are against the policy of the law."