For example, Model Rule 8.3 requires a lawyer to report misconduct of another lawyer
unless Model Rule 1.6 protects the information or the lawyer or judge gains the information «while participating in an approved lawyers assistance program.»
Several other rules require disclosure of information but state that a lawyer need not disclose
unless Model Rule 1.6 permits the disclosure.
Not exact matches
Your business
model is to monetize user information, to maximize profit over privacy, and
unless there are specific
rules and requirements — enforced by an outside agency — I have no assurance that these kinds of vague commitments are going to produce action.
And so, my reservation about your testimony today is that I don't see how you can change your business
model unless there are specific
rules of the road.
Unless we believe that NFL executives have reoriented their mental
models in way that excludes race as an identifying characteristic then the Rooney
Rule still serves a valuable purpose.
And
unless your business
model depends on bilking people, there is little to fear from these new
rules.
Interestingly, our results are actually pretty consistent with a lot of the recent literature on sensitivity: All studies comparing simple
models with recent climate change (from Andronova and Schlesinger, 2001, onwards) find high sensitivities (more than 8K, say) are consistent (at the few - percent level) with the observed record
unless they are
ruled out a priori.
Formal Opinion 480 explains that lawyers communicating about legal topics in public commentary must comply with the ABA
Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including
Rule 1.6 (a) which says: «A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client
unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).»
Unless firms can change existing ethics
rules to redefine what constitutes a conflict of interest (and I believe that we'll see these attempts, especially if firms move towards the
model of a publicly - traded law firm), the number of conflicts based malpractice actions will proliferate.
Rule 3.1 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct rule tells us that we can't file (or defend) a lawsuit «unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.&ra
Rule 3.1 of the ABA
Model Rules of Professional Conduct
rule tells us that we can't file (or defend) a lawsuit «unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.&ra
rule tells us that we can't file (or defend) a lawsuit «
unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous.»
Ever since the Oct. 6, 2015 European Court of Justice
ruling in Schrems v. Data Protection Commissioner invalidated the old Safe Harbor framework, data transfers between Europe and the U.S. were essentially deemed unlawful
unless made subject to other mechanisms, including
model form data transfer agreements or binding corporate
rules.
You are correct that no Brokerage is required to implement the
ruling into their business
models unless they so choose.