Sentences with phrase «same rules of conduct»

This ensures buyers and sellers, as well as the other participants in the MLS, that the agencies they cooperate with will apply the same standards and agree to adhere to the same rules of conduct and professionalism.

Not exact matches

The biblical God establishes laws, rules, codes of conduct much more complex than I laid out for sure, but the point remains the same.

In terms of Doty's ruling, it was determined that the NFL attempted to punish Peterson twice for the same violation and failed to distinguish between the old conduct policy and the new policy.

A declaration that Dr.Zanetor Rawlings» election as a parliamentary candidate elect for the Klottey Korle constituency is null and void and is of no effect as same violates the constitution of the NDC and the rules governing the conduct of the 2015 parliamentary primaries.

Setting out new rules for academy trust inspections in a letter, Mrs Morgan said that the watchdog should continue to conduct «batch» inspections of academies that are all run by the same trust.

At trial the judge ruled that although the inspector had conducted the inspection in a professional, thorough and conscientious manner, he had still fallen short of meeting the standard of care that was expected of him — that of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent home inspector in the same circumstances.

Over at Deliberations, Anne Reed poses a question as a general rule of thumb for evaluating the propriety of jury conduct online: «If the juror had done the same thing off line, what would we do?»

At the same time, all attorneys are officers of the court and bound by rules of conduct.

Since then, 28 states have adopted the same into their rules of professional conduct.

«It is hard to explain why norms which are designed as supreme rules for the conduct of public affairs and the behaviour of public authorities should not apply to those same affairs and to the same authorities when they act on the basis of Community law.»

The introduction of this paper gives a decent overview of double jeopardy with multiple sovereigns (the later parts analyze the rules of one court is national and the other is international), where you can see that the U.S. isn't the only country that can prosecute you after another country has already tried you for the same conduct.

If so: (i) do those same rules also govern the conduct of counsel from your jurisdiction in arbitral proceedings sited elsewhere; and (ii) do those same rules also govern the conduct of counsel from countries other than your jurisdiction in arbitral proceedings sited in your jurisdiction?

They should take all appropriate steps to see that they do apply the same rule to the same conduct, and in all events should avoid proceeding against a lawyer on the basis of two inconsistent rules.

Is that the same as saying in more general terms, that if the rules of professional conduct were laws, many of them would be «void for vagueness,» or in need of express additional «reasonable limits prescribed by law»?

I don't think we can presume that the LSUC has, as an organization, expertise in those areas (certainly not in the same way that we'd expect a disciplinary panel to have expertise in applying the rules of professional conduct).

And be it further enacted, That all the said courts of the United States shall have power to grant new trials, in cases where there has been a trial by jury for reasons for which new trials have usually been granted in the courts of law; and shall have power to impose and administer all necessary oaths or affirmations, and to punish by fine or imprisonment, at the discretion of said courts, all contempts of authority in any cause or hearing before the same; and to make and establish all necessary rules for the orderly conducting business in the said courts, provided such rules are not repugnant to the laws of the United States.

Although the above suggests a co-operative relationship between the courts and the law societies, and distinct roles for each, it fails to acknowledge that both institutions are, in fact, regulating precisely the same area of lawyer conduct (albeit for different ends) and that the judiciary, beginning with Martin v. Gray in 1990, has inserted itself as a regulator in this area in an unprecedented fashion which has led to significant changes in how conflict of interests are regulated not only by the courts but also by law society rules.

In somewhat the same vein, put up a hand if you're in favour of a new rule of lawyer's professional conduct which states that lawyers acting for the winning side in a law suit are allowed to comment on the merits of the result for the media — print, electronic, and otherwise — only if the lawyers concede, on the record, that the decision is wrong on the facts and the law, and that they were surprised (nay, astonished, flabbergasted, etc) that any of their arguments were accepted by the judge.

The Rules of Professional Conduct (the ethics rules governing attorney conduct in NJ) prohibit one lawyer from representing «adverse parties» in the same proceeRules of Professional Conduct (the ethics rules governing attorney conduct in NJ) prohibit one lawyer from representing «adverse parties» in the same proceerules governing attorney conduct in NJ) prohibit one lawyer from representing «adverse parties» in the same proceeding.

At trial the judge ruled that although the inspector had conducted the inspection in a professional, thorough and conscientious manner, he had still fallen short of meeting the standard of care that was expected of him — that of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent home inspector in the same circumstances.