Sentences with phrase «principles speak to the lawyer»

Such principles speak to the lawyer's dual duty as an officer of legal system and the advocate of the client.

Not exact matches

David J. Dempsey, Esq., is a practicing trial attorney and general partner in the Atlanta law firm of Coleman & Dempsey, a professor of public speaking at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, and the author of «Legally Speaking: 40 Powerful Presentation Principles Lawyers Need to Know» (Miranda Publishingspeaking at Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, and the author of «Legally Speaking: 40 Powerful Presentation Principles Lawyers Need to Know» (Miranda PublishingSpeaking: 40 Powerful Presentation Principles Lawyers Need to Know» (Miranda Publishing, 2002).

«Essentially, what I take from this ruling is that we can not say in advance that a collective decision that has to be taken by a group of people and embedded in a document, like a school board resolution or a municipal council decision, we can not say as a principle that because the resolution has to be written down, it speaks for itself,» says Yann Bernard, a partner at Langlois Lawyers LLP who represented the board.

Moreover, this could also be an appropriate test case for the Supreme Court to clarify that the principles set out in National Bank of Canada v. RCIU (the case cited by the hyperbolic Bruce Pardy) do not apply to lawyers, either in their personal or professional capacities, and that Lavigne and Green together stand for the principle that not only is there no right «not to associate» in Canadian law, there is also no right «not to speak» when it comes to lawyers, contrary to the misapprehension of those who are shocked and amazed that the Law Society can require them to adopt a «Statement of Principles» that will, as the supporting legal opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessibprinciples set out in National Bank of Canada v. RCIU (the case cited by the hyperbolic Bruce Pardy) do not apply to lawyers, either in their personal or professional capacities, and that Lavigne and Green together stand for the principle that not only is there no right «not to associate» in Canadian law, there is also no right «not to speak» when it comes to lawyers, contrary to the misapprehension of those who are shocked and amazed that the Law Society can require them to adopt a «Statement of Principles» that will, as the supporting legal opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessibPrinciples» that will, as the supporting legal opinion points out, make their «generic human rights obligations» more «personal... tangible... and readily accessible.»

Applying this generalization actually leads to the absurd suggestion that the «racialized» lawyers who have spoken out against the Statement of Principles and the assumption of relative disadvantage are guilty of failing to understand the perspectives of «racialized» lawyers.