E-Discovery LLC
JULY 31, 2025
For example, Local Civil Rule 26.3 of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York does not preclude definitions of terms specific to the litigation – something that would require leave of court in Nebraska – and it provides a series of definitions applicable to all requests. 2d Depositions and Discovery § 125. Union Pac.
WA Bar News
JUNE 12, 2025
THESE NOTICES OF THE IMPOSITION OF DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS AND ACTIONS are published pursuant to Rule 3.5(c) c) of the Washington Supreme Court Rules for Enforcement of Lawyer Conduct.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Lawmatics
MARCH 1, 2023
The rules surrounding depositions can be enough to send new lawyers into a cold sweat. Depositions are a critical tool for building a case, and as such, it is essential for attorneys of all skill levels to be well-versed in the various objections that can arise during the course of a deposition.
WA Bar News
JUNE 11, 2024
In this column, we’ll address a narrower, but more common, subset of deposition misconduct that the ABA opinion touches on: improper “coaching” during depositions and improper objections intended to impede the questioner. 10 Second, we’ll focus on depositions rather than hearings or trials. Washington RPC 4.4(a)
E-Discovery LLC
JANUARY 31, 2025
The Jennings court discussed a series of discovery events, and added: The parties should be proactive in following-up with their discovery so as not to run into conflicts with the discovery cutoff. In one recent decision, a court wrote that it would be in the parties interest to reach a negotiated result.
Attorney at Work
OCTOBER 11, 2022
see “classic retainer” vs. “advance payment retainer” vs. “security retainer” in Illinois ), but in general, a lawyer is required to deposit flat fees and expenses paid into a client trust account in advance for representation. See Model Rule 1.15. About the Illinois Supreme Court Commission on Professionalism.
IP Watchdog
AUGUST 6, 2024
District Court for the District of Columbia dubbed “remarkable,” the court ruled Monday that “Google is a monopolist” and that the search engine has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act. In a case Judge Amit Mehta of the U.S.
Expert insights. Personalized for you.
Let's personalize your content