Sentences with phrase «permitting fee sharing»

Jurisdictions permitting fee sharing include Washington, D.C. and the United Kingdom.

Not exact matches

To the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Daily Harvest, and our respective past, present and future employees, officers, directors, contractors, consultants, equityholders, suppliers, vendors, service providers, parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, representatives, predecessors, successors and assigns (individually and collectively, the «Daily Harvest Parties»), from and against all actual or alleged Daily Harvest Party or third party claims, damages, awards, judgments, losses, liabilities, obligations, penalties, interest, fees, expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys» fees and expenses) and costs (including, without limitation, court costs, costs of settlement and costs of pursuing indemnification and insurance), of every kind and nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen, matured or unmatured, or suspected or unsuspected, in law or equity, whether in tort, contract or otherwise (collectively, «Claims»), including, but not limited to, damages to property or personal injury, that are caused by, arise out of or are related to (a) your use or misuse of the Sites, Content or Products, (b) any User Content you create, post, share or store on or through the Sites or our pages or feeds on third party social media platforms, (c) any Feedback you provide, (d) your violation of these Terms, (e) your violation of the rights of another, and (f) any third party's use or misuse of the Sites or Products provided to you.

ALBANY — Looking to boost bus service, a state senator has proposed that ride - sharing services — such as Lyft and Uber — be permitted to operate in Nassau County if they collect a 50 - cent - per - ride fee that would go to a dedicated NICE bus fund.

12b - 1 fees, which take their name from the SEC regulation permitting their existence, are charged by mutual funds to cover operating expenses, such as marketing, distribution of shares, printing and mailing prospectuses and responding to shareholder inquiries.

Last year, the Canadian Bar Association released its Futures report, which boldly proposed: «Lawyers should be allowed to practise in business structures that permit fee - sharing, multidisciplinary practice, and ownership, management, and investment by persons other than lawyers or other regulated legal professionals.»

[2] In addition to expressly authorizing intra-firm fee - sharing and business structures between LLLTs and lawyers in paragraph (a), paragraph (b) of the Rule sets forth limitations on the role of LLLTs in jointly owned firms, specifying that regardless of an LLLT's ownership interest in such a firm, the business may not be structured in a way that permits LLLTs directly or indirectly to supervise lawyers or to otherwise direct or regulate a lawyer's independent professional judgment.

Most controversial among these is the proposal that «lawyers should be allowed to practise in business structures that permit fee - sharing, multidisciplinary practice, and ownership, management, and investment by persons other than lawyers or other regulated legal professionals,» in other words, alternative business structures.

Since 2001, under a framework that evolved to regulate legal services rather than lawyers, legal practices in NSW have been permitted to incorporate, to create multi-disciplinary practices, to share fees with non-lawyers, and even to publicly list on the Australian Securities Exchange.

The Bill, announced in the Queen's Speech last week, will also create a single county court system and a single family court for England and Wales, and permit data to be shared between the courts, tribunals, and other agencies, so that fee - exemption applications can be checked electronically.

However, I am not opposed to considering lesser changes such as: (1) relaxing some of the fee - sharing restrictions currently imposed on multi-disciplinary partnerships, (2) permitting law firms to use other types of corporations besides professional corporations, or (3) permitting long - time employees of a law firm to have a small ownership interest in a law firm, at least while they are employed by that firm.

Lawyers should be allowed to practise in business structures that permit fee - sharing, multidisciplinary practice, and ownership, management, and investment by persons other than lawyers or other regulated legal professionals.

[42](Later, on August 19, 2013, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility issued Formal Opinion 464, which clarifies that a lawyer subject to Model Rule 5.4 may share fees with a law firm practicing in a jurisdiction that permits nonlawyer ownership, even if those fees might be distributed to a nonlawyer, provided that there is no interference with the lawyer's independent professional judgment).

Prof. Conduct 123 (2001)(subject to the operational structure and content described in the opinion, a lawyer may affiliate with an online legal services website); Nebraska Op. 07 - 05 (lawyer may participate in internet lawyer directory which identifies itself as a directory, disclaims being a referral service and only lists basic information about lawyers without recommending specific lawyers and charges a reasonable, flat annual advertising fee); New Jersey Committee on Attorney Advertising Op. 36 (2006)(lawyer may pay flat fee to internet marketing company for exclusive website listing for particular county in specific practice area if listing includes prominent, unmistakable disclaimer stating the listings are paid advertisements and not endorsements or authorized referrals); North Carolina Op. 2004 - 1 (lawyer may participate in for - profit online service that is a hybrid referral service - legal directory, provided there is no fee - sharing with the service and communications are truthful); Oregon Op. 2007 - 180 (2007)(lawyer may pay nationwide internet referral service for listing if listing is not false or misleading and does not imply that the lawyer can represent clients outside jurisdictions of the lawyer's license, fee is not based on number of referrals, retained clients or revenue generated by listing and the service does not exercise discretion in matching clients with lawyers); Rhode Island 2005 - 01 (permitting website that enables lawyers to post information about their services and respond to anonymous requests for legal services in exchange for flat annual membership fee if website exercises no discretion over which requests lawyers may access); South Carolina 01 - 03 (lawyer may pay internet advertising service fee determined by the number of «hits» that the service produces for the lawyer provided that the service does not steer business to any particular lawyer and the payments are not based on whether user ultimately becomes a client); Texas Op. 573 (2006)(lawyer may participate in for - profit internet service that matches potential clients and lawyers if selection process is fully automated and performed by computers without the exercise of human discretion); Virginia Advertising Op.

Lawyers in most places are not permitted to share fees with nonlawyers, practice in firms owned by both lawyers and nonlawyers, use nonlawyers to feed business to lawyers, or list unlicensed nonlawyers as legal practitioners on stationery or advertising.

The rest of the country already had laws on the books that permitted buyer brokers to share part of their fee with their own clients.