Sentences with phrase «clear need for lawyers»

There are now organisations offering CPD training to lawyers in basic DNA profiling, such as that offered at both Leeds University and the NOWGEN Centre in Manchester, but there is a clear need for lawyers to see forensic science training as an essential part of their continuing development.

Not exact matches

You need to write down specifics that you want for your child if you are a birth mom, and for PAPs they need to do the same... be clear on what you want, how open you want your relationship with the birth parents to be, and look for an accredited adoption agency and / or adoption lawyer.

First, what I call «quantitative» ADR — for cheaper, faster and more efficient docket clearing from long queues in court (the judicially promoted reason); second, more «qualitative» ADR which means more tailored and party fashioned solutions to legal problems, including a focus on future relations, not just the past, and thirdly, a more politically process oriented hope for greater party participation and de-professionalization («lets not have lawyers if we don't need to») and democratization of dispute resolution.

While it is clear that the current law school format needs to be changed, reducing the number of years of schooling for lawyers is not the answer.

In Part 1, I argued that the initial arguments and subsequent materials that have framed the Dialogue do not provide a clear or compelling demonstration of a «need for change» in the current system for licensing of lawyers in Ontario.

Top tip — Lawyers need a software that is simple to use for time and billing, efficient for invoicing time and costs, and clear procedures and reports for the trust accounting piece.

And it might take years for the incubator to clear a profit, since new lawyers are not generally very profitable, and since they would need some clients.

So many lawyers think they need practice management software and go shopping for it when they don't have a clear idea of what need they will be meeting with it and that becomes a problem when like if you're an Outlook user, maybe that meets your needs and you don't need to be looking at practice management software.

It's not immediately clear to me why a judge on the New York City Civil Court, Housing Part, would be a particular expert on e-mail etiquette for lawyers, but I thought there were a lot of good points in Judge Lebovits» article — which originally appeared in the New York State Bar Association Journal — particularly the reminders on the absence of «tone» and on the need for brevity.

Layer on top of that, technology that reduces the number of lawyers needed for certain tasks, the conflict between hours targets and the «do more for less» challenge, alternative legal providers, the growth of contract lawyers, permanent associates, partners who aren't permanent, the growth of paralegals, as well as a clear message from partners at most law firms that there is no more room at the top.

In the Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct Formal Opinion No. 2015 - 193, California makes it abundantly clear that a lawyer who does not understand how electronically stored information is managed and retrieved for litigation purposes needs to get assistance before embarking on discovery in just about any matter.

It was clear to me that there was a huge unmet need, for clients as well as for lawyers.

There's a little bit of, well, there's a negative perception of lawyers around that, but also just being very clear up front of what are you paying for, what aren't you paying for, and what can you do yourself that you don't need to pay a lawyer for.

So many lawyers think they need practice management software and go shopping for it when they don't have a clear idea of what need they will be meeting with it.

While that may have been true at one time, the tools have evolved significantly in recent years and the need for lawyers to pursue efficiency has never been clearer.

Splitting the work in two, with clear direction to both teams that they work closely together, was a means to help expedite the work, as the need for solutions is pressing, and reflects the fact that lawyers are an important, but not the only, stakeholder involved.

From the point of view of this class — a class I'll just call «lawyers» — it's too clear for argument that (i) law has things to do so that some instrumentalist theory has to be adopted; (ii) few things are simple, so that no single theory will work in every case, whether it's «wealth maximization», «corrective justice», «contract as promise», compensation or deterrence; and (iii) the demands of practice, the solicitor's need to create relations which will be projected into the (uncertain) future and to control the risks his or her client faces, the barrister's need to conduct litigation at a price the parties can afford and in the context of the adversary system, powerfully limit the consideration that a lawyer can give to theory.

However, while there will always be a need and a place for lawyers who do high - powered, high - prestige work at premium rates, it is clear that much of what lawyers now do can be done less expensively by other well - trained individuals and specialized companies.

«Lawyers and judges need to start thinking about alternative non-textual ways of articulating reasons for decisions so that the rationale for an outcome of a particular case is clear, transparent and unambiguous.»

CCLA recognizes the need for sensitive national security intelligence to remain secret in certain circumstances and we argued for the creation of the now present Special Advocate system — which permits security cleared lawyers to review the case against a Named Individual and communicate with that person and their counsel.

Courts often view the «substantial similarity» question as so clear or one - sided that there is no need for a jury to decide the issue (for our lawyer - readers: i.e., summary judgment).

The challenges of delivering major projects vary enormously around the world, but behind them all stands the need for experienced commercial lawyers who are able to advise procedurally on procurement and financing, and then draft and negotiate complex but clear commercially astute contracts that help manage the multitude of risks inherent in such substantial undertakings.

One of the things that is becoming increasingly clear is just how hard it is for the lawyers to do their jobs in this administration, where even the lawyers need lawyers and good legal advice is routinely disregarded.

Our lawyer / lobbyists also have the know - how needed to help advocate for public funding, clear regulatory hurdles, obtain favorable tax treatment, and secure other valuable public policy advantages to jump - start, and then sustain, research - related initiatives.

Perhaps this would clear the way for those that really need judges and lawyers when the power struggle puts those others in danger.