Sentences with phrase «bright line rule»

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

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).

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

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».

[7] A bright line rule has been developed by the courts to protect the representation of and loyalty to current clients.

«The problem is, as soon as you start moving away from bright line rules and toward complicated commercial negotiated arrangements, nothing is going to be easier for anybody,» he told the E-Commerce Times.

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.

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.

a. Does accepting the retainer breach the bright line rule?

If the law firm concludes that the bright line rule is inapplicable, it must then ask itself whether accepting the new retainer will create a substantial risk of impaired representation.

[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 fact that the law firm accepted the conflicting retainer in good faith, reasonably believing that the concurrent representation fell beyond the scope of the bright line rule and applicable law society restrictions.

The bright line rule of Neil is indeed reaffirmed.

Is the existing client exploiting the bright line rule for tactical reasons; and iii.

[67] As discussed, a violation of the bright line rule on its face supports disqualification, even where the lawyer - client relationship has been terminated as a result of the breach.

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

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.

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.

Worth noting that, in general, there is no bright line rule regarding what constitutes a confession.

On July 5, 2013 the Supreme Court issued its judgment in Canadian National Railway v. McKercher LLP, in which it affirmed the «bright line 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.»

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...

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

This, their opponents and supporters of the current practice point out, would visit a hardship upon children for what their parents or ancestors were and did; and, moreover, it would create a bureaucratic nightmare if the bright line rule of jus soli was abandoned.

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 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 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 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».

First, the Court made clear that «the bright line rule applies only where the immediate interests of clients are directly adverse in the matters on which the lawyer is acting» and then only where the clients are adverse in legal interest.

[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.

Exceptionally, the bright line rule does not apply in circumstances where it is unreasonable for a client to expect that the client's law firm will not act against the client in unrelated matters.

[6] The bright line rule, referred to in the Commentary to Rule 3.4 - 1, 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.

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

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.