|
Attorney–client Privilege
Attorney–client privilege or lawyer–client privilege is the name given to the common law concept of legal professional privilege in the United States. Attorney–client privilege is " client's right to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications between the client and the attorney." The attorney–client privilege is one of the oldest privileges for confidential communications. The United States Supreme Court has stated that by assuring confidentiality, the privilege encourages clients to make "full and frank" disclosures to their attorneys, who are then better able to provide candid advice and effective representation. General requirements under United States law Although there are minor variations, the elements necessary to establish the attorney–client privilege generally are: # The asserted holder of the privilege is (or sought to become) a client; and # The person to whom the communication was made: ## is a member ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Common Law
In law, common law (also known as judicial precedent, judge-made law, or case law) is the body of law created by judges and similar quasi-judicial tribunals by virtue of being stated in written opinions."The common law is not a brooding omnipresence in the sky, but the articulate voice of some sovereign or quasi sovereign that can be identified," ''Southern Pacific Company v. Jensen'', 244 U.S. 205, 222 (1917) (Oliver Wendell Holmes, dissenting). By the early 20th century, legal professionals had come to reject any idea of a higher or natural law, or a law above the law. The law arises through the act of a sovereign, whether that sovereign speaks through a legislature, executive, or judicial officer. The defining characteristic of common law is that it arises as precedent. Common law courts look to the past decisions of courts to synthesize the legal principles of past cases. '' Stare decisis'', the principle that cases should be decided according to consistent principled rules ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Estate Planning
Estate planning is the process of anticipating and arranging, during a person's life, for the management and disposal of that person's estate during the person's life, in the event the person becomes incapacitated and after death. The planning includes the bequest of assets to heirs and may include minimizing gift, estate, generation skipping transfer, and taxes. Estate planning includes planning for incapacity as well as a process of reducing or eliminating uncertainties over the administration of a probate and maximizing the value of the estate by reducing taxes and other expenses. The ultimate goal of estate planning can only be determined by the specific goals of the estate owner and may be as simple or complex as the owner's wishes and needs directs. Guardians are often designated for minor children and beneficiaries in incapacity. Devices Estate planning involves the will, trusts, beneficiary designations, powers of appointment, property ownership ( joint tenancy with right ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Physician–patient Privilege
Physician–patient privilege is a legal concept, related to medical confidentiality, that protects communications between a patient and their doctor from being used against the patient in court. It is a part of the rules of evidence in many common law jurisdictions. Almost every jurisdiction that recognizes physician–patient privilege not to testify in court, either by statute or through case law, limits the privilege to knowledge acquired during the course of providing medical services. In some jurisdictions, conversations between a patient and physician may be privileged in both criminal and civil courts. Scope The privilege may cover the situation where a patient confesses to a psychiatrist that they committed a particular crime. It may also cover normal inquiries regarding matters such as injuries that may result in civil action. For example, any defendant that the patient may be suing at the time cannot ask the doctor if the patient ever expressed the belief that their con ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Legal Professional Privilege (England & Wales)
In England and Wales, the principle of legal professional privilege has long been recognised by the common law. It is seen as a fundamental principle of justice, and grants a protection from disclosing evidence. It is a right that attaches to the client (not to the lawyer) and so may only be waived by the client. The majority of English civil cases are subject to the rules of ''standard disclosure'', which are set out by the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (the ''CPR'') Rule 31.6. A party makes disclosure of a document by stating that the document exists or has existed. The right to inspect documents in English civil procedure is governed by CPR Part 31.15. Upon written notice, the party to whom a document has been disclosed has the right to inspect that document (if such inspection would be proportionate given the nature of the case) except where the party making disclosure has the right to withhold inspection. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (PoCA) requires solicitors (and accountan ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Contract Attorney
A contract attorney is a lawyer who works on legal cases on a contract basis. Such work is generally of a temporary nature, often with no guaranteed employment term. A contract attorney is Civil litigation The work of contract attorneys often varies. They can be engaged activities such as document review in response to a document subpoenas or request for production of documents. In such projects, contract attorneys may review tens of thousands, if not millions, of pages of documents and mark them as responsive to a particular request, or protected as attorney work product or under the attorney–client privilege. Large firms have learned that contract attorneys can perform this work much more cost effectively than high-priced associates. Many contract, or freelance, attorneys perform legal research, draft legal briefs, and provide a full range of other services to law firms of all sizes. These attorneys typically work for themselves, rather than for temporary agencies, and ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Buried Bodies Case
The Buried Bodies Case, also known as the Lake Pleasant Bodies Case, is a mid-1970s upstate New York court case where defense attorneys Frank H. Armani and Francis Belge kept secret the location of the bodies of two women murdered by their client, Robert Garrow, Sr. Ahead of trial for an unrelated murder, Garrow confessed to his lawyers that he had murdered two missing women and hidden their bodies. Armani and Belge found the women's bodies but chose to keep the information confidential. Authorities continued to search for the missing women for months as their families grieved. When the public discovered Armani and Belge had kept this information secret, they faced criminal charges and disbarment proceedings. The attorneys claimed they were bound by the duty of confidentiality not to disclose information that could incriminate their client. Armani and Belge were later absolved of any wrongdoing. The case has become a touchstone in legal ethics courses. It highlights lawyers' eth ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Admissible Evidence
Admissible evidence, in a court of law, is any testimonial, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to a factfinder—usually a judge or jury—to establish or to bolster a point put forth by a party to the proceeding. For evidence to be admissible, it must be relevant and "not excluded by the rules of evidence", which generally means that it must not be unfairly prejudicial, and it must have some indicia of reliability. The general rule in evidence is that all relevant evidence is admissible and all irrelevant evidence is inadmissible, though some countries (such as the United States and, to an extent, Australia) proscribe the prosecution from exploiting evidence obtained in violation of constitutional law, thereby rendering relevant evidence inadmissible. This rule of evidence is called the exclusionary rule. In the United States this was effectuated federally in 1914 under the Supreme Court case ''Weeks v. United States'' and incorporated against the ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Question
In United States law, federal question jurisdiction is a type of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives United States federal court The federal judiciary of the United States is one of the three branches of the federal government of the United States organized under the United States Constitution and laws of the federal government. The U.S. federal judiciary consists primar ...s the power to hear Civil law (common law), civil cases where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the United States Constitution, law of the United States, federal law, or a treaty to which the United States is a party. The federal question jurisdiction statute is codified at . Statute Overview Article III of the Constitution of the United States, Article III of the United States Constitution permits federal courts to hear such cases, so long as the United States Congress passes a statute to that effect. However, when Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, which authorized the newly created fed ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Diversity Jurisdiction
In the law of the United States, diversity jurisdiction is a form of subject-matter jurisdiction that gives U.S. federal courts the power to hear lawsuits that do not involve a federal question. For a U.S. federal court to have diversity jurisdiction over a lawsuit, two conditions must be met. First, there must be "diversity of citizenship" between the parties, meaning the plaintiffs must be citizens of different U.S. states than the defendants. Second, the lawsuit's " amount in controversy" must be more than $75,000. If a lawsuit does not meet these two conditions, U.S. federal courts will normally lack the power to hear it unless it involves a federal question, and the lawsuit would need to be heard in state court instead. The United States Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, grants Congress the power to permit federal courts to hear diversity cases through legislation authorizing such jurisdiction. The provision was included because the Framers of the Constitution were ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Federal Rules Of Evidence
First adopted in 1975, the Federal Rules of Evidence codify the evidence law that applies in United States federal courts. In addition, many states in the United States have either adopted the Federal Rules of Evidence, with or without local variations, or have revised their own evidence rules or codes to at least partially follow the federal rules. History The law of evidence governs the proof of facts and the inferences flowing from such facts during the trial of civil and criminal lawsuits. Before the twentieth century, evidence law was largely the product of decisional law. During the twentieth century, projects such as the California Evidence Code and the Uniform Rules of Evidence encouraged the codification of those common law evidence rules. In 1965, Chief Justice Earl Warren appointed an advisory committee of fifteen to draft the new rules. The committee was composed of U.S. lawyers and U.S. legal scholars. The Federal Rules of Evidence began as rules proposed pursua ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Accountant–client Privilege
Accountant–client privilege is a confidentiality privilege, or more precisely, a group of privileges, available in American federal and state law. Accountant–client privileges may be classified in two categories: evidentiary privileges and non-evidentiary privileges. An evidentiary privilege is one that may as a general rule be successfully asserted in a court of law. A non-evidentiary privilege is (A) one that may not be maintained in a court of law, or (B) one which is, according to the terms of the statute granting the privilege, not applicable in the face of an order from the court compelling disclosure of the communication for which the privilege is claimed. The evidentiary and non-evidentiary versions of the accountant-client privilege are, as a general rule, creations of Federal or state statute. Under English common law, on which American law is based, there was generally no accountant–client privilege. In the United Kingdom in particular the Proceeds of Crime Act 20 ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
Tax Evasion
Tax evasion is an illegal attempt to defeat the imposition of taxes by individuals, corporations, trusts, and others. Tax evasion often entails the deliberate misrepresentation of the taxpayer's affairs to the tax authorities to reduce the taxpayer's tax liability, and it includes dishonest tax reporting, declaring less income, profits or gains than the amounts actually earned, overstating deductions, using bribes against authorities in countries with high corruption rates and hiding money in secret locations. Tax evasion is an activity commonly associated with the informal economy. One measure of the extent of tax evasion (the "tax gap") is the amount of unreported income, which is the difference between the amount of income that should be reported to the tax authorities and the actual amount reported. In contrast, tax avoidance is the legal use of tax laws to reduce one's tax burden. Both tax evasion and tax avoidance can be viewed as forms of tax noncompliance, as they desc ... [...More Info...] [...Related Items...] OR: [Wikipedia] [Google] [Baidu] |
.png "Click for more on -> Common Law")
