Sentences with phrase «a bright line rule»

«For us, we would like to see bright line rules that ban paid prioritization and content and application - specific blocking,» Erickson says.

By the end of February, when Federal Communications Commission chairman Tom Wheeler delivers his final set of rules on net neutrality, Wheeler would expand the agency's reach over the internet and broadband providers through a series of «bright line rules» that would take the debate over net neutrality to yet another level.

A bright line rule would be difficult to establish since every case / parody is different.

To date, there has not been a bright line rule with regards to parodies in the adult context.

In law such rules are known as Bright Line Rules: rather than 20 million words of tax law, you simply declare «any financial transaction whose only conceivable motivation is the avoidance of tax is by definition illegal».

The BAPCPA replaced the discretion of judges to determine whether a debtor could file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy with a bright line rule that requires debtors to meet a means test to determine Chapter 7 eligibility.

The Canadian Bar Association will urge the Supreme Court of Canada to water down its bright line rule on conflicts during Thursday's hearing of Canadian National Railway v. McKercher LLP.

Counsel for CN and McKercher are also expected to clash over the «professional litigant exception» to the bright line rule, where consent to act adverse in interest may be inferred from entities such as banks, governments, or large corporations.

Requiring a licensee to acknowledge, for example, that he has an obligation not to represent two clients whose legal interests are directly adverse, even in an unrelated matter, helps ensure that licensee remembers that the bright line rule exists.

Ultimately, courts must conduct a case - by - case assessment, and set aside the bright line rule when it appears that a client could not reasonably expect its application.

[37] Finally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.

The Bright Line rule has been confirmed — the court was not prepared to overrule Neil and Strother.

The fact that the Wallace and CN retainers were legally and factually unrelated does not prevent the application of the bright line rule.

Candour — A lawyer should advise an existing client before accepting a retainer that will require him to act against the client, even if he considers the situation to fall outside the scope of the bright line rule.

If the answer is yes, simultaneously acting for and against a client in legal matters will generally result in a breach of the bright line rule, and the law firm can not accept the new retainer unless the clients involved grant their informed consent.

This Court found the bright line rule to be inapplicable to the facts of both of those cases, and instead examined whether there was a substantial risk of impaired representation: Neil, at para. 31; Strother, at para. 54.

Most educational institutions are still struggling to develop bright line rules which could foster predictability and transparency.

The statutory scheme creates a bright line rule which is relatively easy to apply.

Even in the context of zoning, which has purportedly been the subject of a «bright line rule,» this Court has not been able to agree on which cases require an application...

In light of that fact, and the absence of any bright line rule regarding NJLAD's applicability to out - of - state employees, you may want to consider executing, where available by law, a written agreement with your non-resident telecommuters delineating which state's law applies in the event of a legal dispute («choice of law» clause), and in which court those disputes are to be filed («forum selection» clause).

There is no bright line rule that the courts use to determine...

This is one of those decisions that while creating a bright line rule, may have little application in the future.

We urged the bright line rule that the Court adopted in its holding today — «Amici respectfully submit that the Court should affirm the result reached by the Second Circuit and establish a bright line rule limiting the application of rule 10 (b) to securities bought or sold in the United States.»

Americans talk to us about their «bright line rules.»

The rules in the Federation's Model Code of Professional Conduct governing conflicts of interest reflect the bright line rule and are consistent with the Court's decision.

The Court also held that when the bright line rule does not apply a conflict of interest may still exist if there is a substantial risk that representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected by the lawyer's own interests or both the lawyer's duties to another current or former client or to a third party.

The Court did identify three limitations on the scope of the bright line rule: it applies only where the immediate legal interests of the clients are directly adverse; it can not be used tactically; and it does not apply in situations in which it would be unreasonable for a client to expect that a law firm will not act against it in unrelated matters.

The Court confirmed the «bright line rule» established in the case of R. v. Neil that a lawyer may not concurrently represent clients whose legal interests are directly adverse without first obtaining their consent.

The Court observed, «The main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings».

The legislatively established bright line rule roughly captured the results of those disputes, with much less litigation cost, while giving insureds more confidence that they would not be cheated of their premiums when they died due to reasons trumped up after the death by the insurance company.

[26] In cases where the bright line rule does not apply, the court must then ask whether the concurrent representation of clients creates a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected.

Where such a risk exists, consent is required even though the bright line rule does not apply.

The scope of the bright line rule is limited.

In matters involving another current client, lawyers should take care to consider not only whether the bright line rule applies but whether there is a substantial risk of impairment.

The bright line rule applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated.

While the opinion doesn't set any bright line rules, it makes it clear that lawyers need to consider the privacy measures they are taking to protect sensitive client information.

The bright line rule holds that a lawyer can not act directly adverse to the immediate legal interests of a current client, without the clients» consent.

Accordingly, the main area of application of the bright line rule is in civil and criminal proceedings.

Failing to obtain consent breaches the bright line rule.

Writing for a unanimous court, McLachlin CJC concluded, among other things, that the situation «fell squarely within the scope of the bright line rule» and remitted the matter back to the lower court for redetermination in accordance with the Court's reasons.

As noted by Harvey Morrison, «[i] f there were any hopes that the Supreme Court of Canada would moderate the rigour of the bright line rule in Neil, they were dashed in Strother.»

C.A., September 28, 2011)(34545) July 5, 2013 The «bright line rule» is engaged when two separate clients are adverse in legal interests.

[Neil] This bright line rule amounts to a clear prohibition: see McKercher, at para. 26.

There aren't bright line rules in the area of fair use (which is the core issue - you are clearly copying a work that has copyright protected portions, at least - the question is whether fair use provides a defense and whether some portions are not copyright protected).

A second issue with the Court's judgment that may be more significant is its suggestion that the bright line rule and the substantial risk principle are distinct tests for identifying the existence of a conflict of interest, with the substantial risk principle applying in circumstances where the bright line rule has not been satisfied.

The bright line rule provides that, absent client consent, a «lawyer may not represent one client whose interests are directly adverse to the immediate interests of another current client — even if the two mandates are unrelated» (Neil at para 29, emphasis in original).

In the American law from which both the bright line rule and the substantial risk principle are derived, the substantial risk test is what defines when a conflict arises; the bright line rule is relevant as a way of identifying whether or not there is a substantial risk.

The «risk to effective representation» is prevented in two ways, by the bright line rule and by the substantial risk principle.

If a representation is not prohibited by the bright line rule, «the question becomes whether the concurrent representation of clients creates a substantial risk that the lawyer's representation of the client would be materially and adversely affected» (para 38).

In going on to set the scope of the bright line rule and the substantial risk principle, however, the Court does not make any further mention of the fiduciary obligations of the lawyer.