We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
In cooperation with Association of Corporate Counsel
  Request new password

Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 47

Agreement for “direct use immunity” did not preclude federal prosecutors from sharing defendant’s incriminating proffer statements with foreign (or state) authorities

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • France, USA
  • -
  • June 23 2009

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed that a criminal defendant’s agreement with federal prosecutors not to use against him any statements made by him during proffer sessions did not bar the U.S. Attorney’s Office from sharing his incriminating statements with authorities in France who then used the statements against him in French criminal proceedings

10 tips for outsourcing document reviews to offshore vendors

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 3 2010

Legal departments are increasingly using contract attorneys to conduct document reviews during discovery

Authorized House Counsel: Connecticut’s official registration application form

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 14 2007

The official application form for registration as Authorized House Counsel in Connecticut is now available on the website of the Connecticut Bar Examining Committee (CBEC

US Supreme Court gives district court judges broad sentencing discretion

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 18 2008

In December 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two decisions which give federal judges more discretion in imposing sentences significantly lower or higher than the sentencing ranges recommended in the federal Sentencing Guidelines

Pantazis v. Fidrych

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • December 30 2008

In the recently-reported decision in Pantazis v. Fidrych, Case No. 02-CV-0919, 2008 Mass. Super. LEXIS 386 (Worcester Super. Ct. Nov. 7 2008), the Superior Court addresses, among other things, its authority to remove a trustee

Rostanzo v. Rostanzo

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 2 2009

In Rostanzo v. Rostanzo, Case No. 06-P-1953, 2009 Mass. App. LEXIS 100 (Jan. 29, 2009), the Appeals Court addressed the enforceability of an antenuptial agreement and the validity of a will

Heavey v. Maloof

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • February 24 2009

In Heavey v. Maloof, Case No. SJC-10290 (Feb. 20, 2009), the Supreme Judicial Court addressed statute of limitations questions under G.L. 230, 5

New Subsection (9) of Rule 4:02 of the Supreme Judicial Court rules, effective June 1, 2008, requires Massachusetts in-house lawyers not admitted to the bar of the Commonwealth to register with the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • June 26 2008

In December, 2006, the Supreme Judicial Court adopted Rule 5.5 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, conferring formal legitimacy and peace of mind on many Massachusetts in-house lawyers who are not admitted to the Massachusetts bar

Immediate appeal is permitted to challenge a trial court’s authority to vacate a previous judgment

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • April 11 2007

The Supreme Court of Connecticut recently found another exception to the final judgment rule under the second prong of State v. Curcio, 191 Conn. 27, 31 (1983), reaffirming that parties may immediately appeal and challenge a trial court’s power to vacate a previous judgment or order

Donoghue v. Horner

  • Day Pitney LLP
  • -
  • USA
  • -
  • May 28 2009

Case law relating to trusts and estates is constantly evolving