Sentences with phrase «justice lawyers argued»

Not exact matches

Justice Department lawyers argued in court earlier this month that the federal guidelines issued in May were non-binding with no legal consequences.

U.S. courts should not play a role in reviewing or restraining targeted killings, argues the Justice Department lawyers, since it would effectively enable them to «supervise inherently predictive judgments» by the president and his national security advisers «as to when and how to use force against an enemy against which Congress has already authorized the use of force.»

His lawyer Chief Bolaji Ayorinde, SAN, while arguing Amosu's bail application after he was arraigned before Justice Mohammed Idris before a Federal High court in Lagos, said his client had returned «collossal sums».

Justice Gabriel Kolawole fixed May 2 for judgment after lawyers to the respective parties argued for and against the suit on Friday.

Giving the «particulars» of the said error, the lawyer argued, «The powers given to the first appellant (the IGP) under the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and the Nigeria Police Act, Laws of the Federation 2004, sufficiently make the «Special Joint Investigation Panel» lawful and supportable under the Nigerian criminal justice system.

The lawyer argued in the third grounds that the CCT erred in law «when it abandoned the main purport of the recusal (disqualification) and ignored the submissions of counsel thereon only to begin to write a ruling comprised of facts and arguments that are only know to Justice Umar and not raised or introduced by any parties in order to arrive at a conclusion not urged upon him by any of the parties concerning the constitutional and statutory relationship between the AGF and the EFCC».

A Brooklyn lawyer argued before Supreme Court Justice Richard Platkin that the ballot language for a referendum on casino gambling is improperly misleading.

His lawyers argue that the NSERC's appeal procedure denies him natural justice — by permitting persons involved in the initial decision to participate in the appeal process.

The related idea that the justices who voted in Brown, or the lawyers who argued against segregation, would have had objections to voluntary efforts to integrate seems equally implausible.

Lawyers recently finished arguing a potentially historic workers» free speech case before the U.S. Supreme Court and pundits are buzzing about Justice Neil Gorsuch's silence during the proceedings.

When the lawyer for the state of Illinois tried to argue that the state had an interest in working with «a stable, responsible, independent counterpart that's well - resourced enough that it can partner in the process of not only contract negotiation,» Justice Kennedy broke in and devastatingly finished his thought by saying, «It can partner with you in advocating for a greater size workforce, against privatization, against merit promotion, for teacher tenure, for higher wages, for massive government, for increasing bonded indebtedness, for increasing taxes.»

After all, we would argue that being able to read at an advanced level, or having access to a lawyer are far greater advantages than access to a computer and, if such is the case, then the status quo is much more problematic with regard to the equality of arms principle that is a building block towards access to justice than any well conceived online platform could ever be.

Alan Shanoff has argued that real access to justice means reducing the roles that lawyers play in the courts.

Last but not least, human beings see UPL prosecutions as self - serving and protectionist, and alternative legal services providers helping individuals that were otherwise not getting help from lawyers and paralegals would likely argue that access to justice is being thwarted.

In response, plaintiffs» lawyers argued that bringing the case to the Office of Special Counsel was «utterly unrealistic» and that the Civil Justice Reform Act did not contemplate the unique situation presented by the case.

Our lawyers have studied at some of the most prestigious law schools in North America and have successfully argued and enforced the rights of injured people at all levels of court, including the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the Divisional Court and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Encouraged by the work of the Restorative Justice Council, lawyers involved in the system have argued, vigorously and rightly, that punishment has little effect in reducing recidivism.

Few litigants or lawyers would argue that this sort of bespoke justice is anything other than a highly desirable outcome, but the end result is the fraying of the tapestry of the common law with inconsistent and sometimes incoherent case law that becomes increasingly intricate as exception after exception is carved out of general, normative principles to meet the needs of individual families.

The elevation of mere «conflict resolution» above actual justice and equity, rendering lawyers untrained, and thus unable to think or argue, in terms of justice and equity.

But the brief by Justice Department lawyer Michelle R. Bennett argues that the law is constitutional.

This numb skull didn't impersonate anyone in particular but rather patrolled the halls of justice inserting himself into conversations between lawyers and their clients, arguing with the attorneys» advice.

I argued that in the interest of access to justice we should have a safe harbor that encourages legal software development for consumers, if there were sufficient warnings to the consumer they were not dealing with a lawyer, but a software application.

This has potential adverse consequences both in individual cases, where parties are unfamiliar with court procedures and do not have a lawyer to argue their case or examine the witnesses, and for the justice system overall, since the presence of lawyers is a major contributing factor to the efficient and effective operation of our courts.

While it is true that accountants and other business professionals share an ethical obligation to disclose fraud, I would argue that the obligation is heightened for lawyers because of lawyers» relationship to the administration of justice.

As Justice Ferguson scathingly noted in a judgment where lawyers for both parties had failed to do adequate research for the case: «In my view, it is not acceptable for any counsel or articling student to come to court intending to argue a contentious point of law without first researching the point at least to the extent of looking up the issue in basic reference books... If the lack of preparation and research in this case were unique or unusual I would let it pass, however, unfortunately it is not.

Lawyers who argue before the Supreme Court expect tough questioning, perhaps even skepticism or ridicule from the justices.

Lawyers have been arguing in court over the past decade that Access to Justice should be recognized as an unwritten constitutional principle or an actual constitutional right.

In contrast to OTLA's doing nothing in twenty years to improve access to justice for injured Ontario auto accident victims (only a fool would argue that CFAs by themselves make OTLA lawyers the poster boys and girls for affordable, quality lawyering) the OTLA machine has almost over-night ramped up a constitutional challenge to this private - interest (big insurance) home - grown governmental attack on its profits.

Regina v. X.W. and Q.Z. (2011) Charges of assault causing bodily harm stayed in the Ontario Court of Justice, Brampton, after defence lawyers Joseph Neuberger were successful in arguing that the clients» rights under section 11 (b) of the Charter were violated as the case took some twelve and half months to be tried.

Richard Susskind, Technology Advisor to the Lord Chief Justice, has been arguing for several years that technological disruption is inevitable and that lawyers need to prepare now.

The complainant, who is a lawyer, argued that «relaxing a rule» does not allow for the creation of a new criterion; its purpose is only to «militate towards justice,» meaning it should only make the rules less restrictive, making it easier for a complaint to be filed.

High Court judge Mr Justice Knowles says lawyers can do more to «get behind» public legal education and improve understanding of the rule of law, while Mishcon de Reya's James Libson argues that London's biggest commercial law firms could offer more support to other parts of the profession, such as the legal aid practices defending the public on the front lines of society.

No amount of brilliant new legal arguments about race, gender or justice help the person who can not afford a lawyer to argue for child support, or a wrongful dismissal, or a sexual harassment claim.

ICBC»S lawyer appealed both awards, arguing that the trial justice based his decision on speculation, and did not provide adequate reasons for the awards that were made.

WINNIPEG — A defence lawyer is arguing that justice for a 15 - year - old girl whose body was found dumped in a Winnipeg river shouldn't mean injustice for the man charged with murder in her death.

In «Family Justice 3.5: Fostering a Settlement - Oriented Legal Culture,» I argued that lawyers have an ongoing obligation to proactively examine options for settlement and to recommend and encourage settlement when settlement is possible and reasonable.

Lawyers for the hospital and its staff argue that the trial judge failed to address much of their extensive evidence and this resulted in a «miscarriage of justice,» their factum said.

Justice Stratas argues that we need stable, coherent, legal doctrine to which lawyers and judges alike are committed because we might not always live in «benign times,» and in a moment of crisis we will be better off if judges decide controversial cases on the basis of stable legal doctrine rather than of what they feel is right or fair in those ominous circumstances.

And this is what I understand to be the meaning of our lawyers, when they say that these civil corporations are liable to no visitation; that is, that the law having by immemorial usage appointed them to be visited and inspected by the king their founder, in his majesty's court of king's bench, according to the rules of the common law, they ought not to be visited elsewhere, or by any other authority.53 And this is so strictly true, that though the king by his letters patent had subjected the college of physicians to the visitation of four very respectable persons, the lord chancellor, the two chief justices, and the chief baron; though the college had accepted this carter with all possible marks of acquiescence, and had acted under it for near a century; yet, in 1753, the authority of this provision coming in dispute, on an appeal preferred to these supposed visitors, they directed the legality of their own appointment to be argued: and, as this college was a mere civil, and not an eleemosynary foundation, they at length determined, upon several days solemn debate, that they had no jurisdiction as visitors; and remitted the appellant (if aggrieved) to his regular remedy in his majesty's court of king's bench.

Not good enough, say the Trial Lawyers and the BC branch of the Canadian Bar Association, as well as a number of interveners, who argue that the fees impede access to justice and prevent the less well - off litigants from having their disputes resolved by courts.

Scalia's critics may argue they do not find Sander's data more persuasive than that of his critics, and that justices should only cite correct facts, even when questioning lawyers at argument.

It could be argued that in this role, defence lawyers are the most ethical lawyers because they uphold the administration of justice even when societal beliefs are against them.

Civil liberties lawyers argue the Justice Department request fell well outside the bounds of what is typically covered by a subpoena, including basic subscriber information.