Sentences with phrase «bright line blakely»

The decree draws a bright line between a «user» — defined to mean «an identified individual from whom [Facebook] has obtained information,» and a «third party,» defined to mean «any individual or entity that uses or receives covered information obtained by or on behalf of» Facebook.

The rollback of the Open Internet Order reverted not only the ISPs» classification of Title II service, but also the four «bright line rules».

According to the filing, the IA is focusing on three major areas: the removal of rules against blocking, throttling and paid prioritization distort competition and places the burden on consumers, the removal of well - established, bright line net neutrality rules harms internet companies» ability to reach customers across the country, and the new rules harm future growth in the internet ecosystem as a whole.

This is a puzzling assertion to make when the proposal itself asks over and over again whether the «bright line» rules of no blocking, no throttling, etc should be removed.

This is particularly true in Virginia where the clock often starts ticking based on a literal bright line trigger.

This limitation on the bright line rule is to be assessed based on the nature of the firm - client relationship, the «terms of the retainer», and the «types of matters involved» (para 37).

The case invited the Court to reconsider its «bright line» rule for current client conflicts, as previously set out by the Court in R v Neil, 2002 SCC 70.

While the Court was indeed unambiguous in its conclusion that McKercher had acted improperly — in violating the bright line rule, in dropping its CNR retainers and in failing to be candid — the lack of any conclusion about the appropriate remedy necessarily weakens the strength of those conclusions.

In substance similar to the American Bar Association's Model Rule 1.7 (a), the bright line rule was a change to Canadian law, imposing obligations on lawyers with respect to their current clients that had not previously been stated in Canadian case law or codes of professional conduct.

Given that controversy, the Supreme Court's brief, clear and unanimous judgment in McKercher reaffirming the bright line rule is most welcome.

For that reason, while we know the bright line rule still applies, and we have the four factors relevant to assessing its scope, we still do not really know what it means for lawyers, their clients or the administration of justice.

The bright line rule is, as noted above, «the general rule that 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» (cited in McKercher at para 27).

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.

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).

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

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 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).

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.

A «bright line» precisely setting out protected secrets from unprotected secrets may be a holy grail for law firm managers, but the examples cited of the sources of the law of confidentiality and privilege show that the law itself is not sufficiently settled in our young country to draw such a line safely.

The new Supreme Court decision holds that the McKercher firm crossed the bright line, that it breached both its duties of commitment and candour.

Adoption of an approach to regulating conflicts of interest that diverges significantly from the Supreme Court's bright line test and interpretation of fiduciary duties might lead to lawyers being removed as counsel by a court even though they have complied with the rules set by law societies.

It said that McKercher owed a duty of loyalty to its clients and that it had crossed Binnie J's bright line.

He continued, «Our border line was never meant to be a bright line, marking the end of the rule of law and civil protections, giving those who should know better permission to shuck their training and responsibility and open fire on neighbors.»

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).

There was no bright line separating the two.

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

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

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.»

Rather than use language such as «candor,» we spelled out «a lawyer must not lie to...» We extended conflicts and confidentiality rules to not only firms but associations of lawyers, we tried to draw a «bright line» in terms of conflicts»

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.

Failing to obtain consent breaches the bright line rule.

The problem is there is no bright line dividing judicial notice from its elusive cousin, common sense.

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

[8] The bright line recognizes that the lawyer - client relationship may be irreparably damaged where the lawyer's representation of one client is directly adverse to another client's immediate legal interests.

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.

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 applies even if the work done for the two clients is completely unrelated.

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 scope of the bright line rule is limited.

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

«Since materiality is highly contextual there is no bright line test to determine whether a material change has occurred.

And this definition has long carried over to the legal world where mergers were viewed in the bright line context of all or nothing — when two law firms get together it is either a merger or it is -LSB-...]

The «bright line» rule does not apply in unrelated matters where «it is unreasonable for a client to expect that its law firm will not act against it».

[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.

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.

But the bright line consideration is the overall fairness of the trial.

While the Court clearly rejected the proposition that the «bright line» rule is presumptive, the changes made by the Court to the scope of the rule clearly reduce apparent over-breadth by permitting consideration of essentially the same factors that would be considered if the rule were presumptive.

Neither conception of the «bright line» rule urged on the Court «won» or «lost» in McKercher.

Even if the «bright line» rule applies where there is no risk of mischief despite its newly limited scope, it appears clear that disqualification will not be available absent risk of mischief.

I think this important because it is a further indication that the «bright line» rule mainly applies to litigation.