Pedro is
identified by commentators as «an exceptionally good lawyer, extremely smart, very strategic and conducted the hearing perfectly» (Chambers Latin America 2017), «very hard worker and fantastic in general» (Chambers Latin America 2016), «extremely accomplished lawyer» (Chambers Latin America 2015), «very hard - working and extremely knowledgeable» (Chambers Global 2014).
Not exact matches
A few
commentators over at the Lawfare blog, however, took it a step further
by suggesting that not only will robots be able to
identify hostile targets over innocents, they'll actually do it better than humans.
This key fact, so routinely ignored
by innumerable political
commentators now including David Miliband, was first
identified in 1983.
Under the circumstances, it's no surprise that modern students» legal research proficiency is hindered
by what
commentators have accurately
identified as «shallow reading» and «cut - and - paste» analysis.62 And there is data aplenty to establish that today's law graduates are generally inefficient researchers.63 But is a return to the books the only antidote?
While acknowledging that both
commentators and judges frequently describe the consequence of information being protected
by the without prejudice principle as being that it is privileged from production, the word privilege is used in this paper to
identify a form of protection going beyond that afforded
by the without prejudice principle, just as does legal professional privilege.
Strengths: The practice's position as a top - ranking partnership team is explicitly stressed
by several
commentators, one
identifying its lawyers as «the leading partnerships disputes people,» and another observing that it is «comparable to any leading firm in the world.»
Despite assertions
by some
commentators who question the wisdom of lateral partner hiring, lateral partner hiring remains an extremely viable strategy for growth and is the strategy most often
identified by firm leaders as key to their competitive approach.