May 1, 2019. WASHINGTON — Attorney General William P. Barr said during his confirmation hearing in January that serving in his future post was …
Jan 17, 2019 · DAVID GREENE, HOST: President Trump's nominee for attorney general, William Barr, faced some sharp questioning this week from senators who wanted to know just how independent of President Trump he ...
May 10, 2007 · Attorneys General should not be completely "independent" of the Presidents who appoint them. And it would be an error if, out of pique with the current Administration, Congress or public opinion were to go overboard in mandating change to this effect.
Mar 10, 2022 · The plaintiff alleges that she has engaged in or wishes to engage in constitutionally protected but statutorily barred activity. She sues the statute’s enforcer — typically the attorney general — to obtain an injunction prohibiting …
Non-statutory general oversight of the Services Prosecuting Authority and government prosecuting departments. Government's principal legal adviser dealing with (amongst others) questions of international law, human rights, devolution and COVID-19 issues.
Part One: Schedule of Offences Requiring AG's or DPP's Consent to ProsecutionOffenceRequires consent ofControl of Pollution Act 1974, s.6DPP or the Environment Agency: s.6(3)Coroners and Justice Act 2009, s.62DPP: s.62(9)Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 s.1DPP: s.17(a)119 more rows•31 Oct 2018
Her Majesty's Solicitor General for England and Wales, known informally as the Solicitor General, is one of the law officers of the Crown in the government of the United Kingdom. They are the deputy of the Attorney General, whose duty is to advise the Crown and Cabinet on the law.
The attorney general is also the chief legal adviser of the Crown and its government, and has the primary role of advising the government on any legal repercussions of their actions, either orally at meetings or in writing. As well as the government as a whole, they also advise individual departments.
The process of applying for a fiat from the Attorney-General In simple terms, this is because a person requires standing to bring a case before the court and it is the Attorney-General's fiat that grants a person the standing to do so. Once they have their fiat, they can go to court.
Meaning of Belonging to Another An owner can damage their own property if, at the same time, it belongs to someone else – s. 10(2) CDA 1971. For example, if a person sets fire to their own house, which is subject to a mortgage, they can still be charged under s.10 Nov 2021
The Solicitor General of India is subordinate to the Attorney General for India. They are the second law officer of the country, assists the Attorney General, and is assisted by Additional Solicitors General for India.
Being the highest law officer of the country, it is the duty of the attorney general to advise the government on legal matters that are referred to him by the president. He is also duty-bound to undertake any responsibilities of duties of legal character that are assigned to him by the president.4 Jan 2022
The Paymaster General makes payments on behalf of departments in respect of such items as salaries, contractors' accounts, subsidies, compensation and payments relating to social and other services.
They are appointed by the President of India on the advice of the Union Cabinet under Article 76(1) of the Constitution and hold office during the pleasure of the President. They must be a person qualified to be appointed as a Judge of the Supreme Court.
A sentence is unduly lenient: '… where it falls outside the range of sentences which the judge, applying his mind to all the relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate.9 Mar 2021
The Attorney General oversees the work of the CPS, meeting regularly with the DPP and requesting briefings on matters of public or Parliamentary concern. The Attorney General (or their deputy, the Solicitor General) answer for the CPS's performance and conduct in Parliament.
A primary function of the Justice Department, which the attorney general directs, is “to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” Sadly, the Justice Department under Barr has not lived up to its charge.
According to Rule 8.4 of the ABA’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct, “It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to … engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.” In addition, the comment to this rule states, “Lawyers holding public office assume legal responsibilities going beyond those of other citizens.
Further, according to paragraph (a) of Rule 1.7 of the ABA’s Model Rules, “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.
Barr faulted what he called "irregularities" in the Flynn case that he said made it appropriate for him to resolve it by scrapping the prosecution. And he denied that there was anything suspicious about the replacement of Berman, including any connection to ongoing investigations that might involve associates of Trump.
When pressed on whether he had evidence to suggest such a plot was underway by foreign adversaries, the attorney general said that he did not, but that his department had evidence of foreign countries being interested in interference more broadly — and that he thought mail voting was an obvious target.
On the subject of the coronavirus pandemic, Barr once again criticized state governors for implementing strict mitigation protocols in an attempt to slow the spread of the virus, accusing those leaders of abusing their power and compromising citizens' livelihoods.
We have previously written about the New York Attorney General’s expansive enforcement powers under New York’s Martin Act. [1] The Martin Act broadly regulates the advertisement, issuance, exchange, purchase or sale of securities, commodities and certain other investments within or from New York. It authorizes the Attorney General to conduct investigations of potential securities or commodities fraud, and to bring civil or criminal actions against alleged violators of the Act. [2] To that end, the Martin Act vests the New York Attorney General with a wide variety of enforcement powers, including the power to:
The Martin Act, Executive Law Section 63 (12) , and New York GBL Sections 349 and 350, along with certain additional New York statutory provisions, combine to grant the New York Attorney General broad authority to investigate and pursue civil and criminal enforcement actions related to allegedly fraudulent or deceptive and misleading practices involving securities, commodities and other financial and consumer transactions. The absence in these provisions of certain basic procedural and substantive protections, at least as interpreted by the New York Attorney General and some New York courts—and the aggressive manner in which a succession of New York Attorneys General have chosen to apply them—underscores the need for counsel representing an individual or entity served with an Attorney General investigative subpoena to consider challenging the propriety of the Attorney General’s conduct on procedural or substantive grounds. Such a response may include a motion to quash a subpoena in which procedural or substantive constitutional claims, along with other appropriate claims and objections, could be raised. Further scrutiny of the New York Attorney General’s enforcement program on these grounds by New York and federal trial and appellate courts is overdue.
Under the terms of Section 63 (12), “fraudulent conduct” includes “any device, scheme or artifice to defraud and any deception, misrepresentations, concealment, suppression, false pretense, false promise or unconscionable contractual provision.”.
An investigative subpoena served by the New York Attorney General warrants the same care, and practical steps, that a subpoena in the more usual context—a civil lawsuit— requires. Thus, as with any subpoena, counsel should first ensure that the client properly implements a sufficient hold on potentially responsive electronic and hardcopy documents. At the outset, counsel should also, as with any law enforcement subpoena, contact the attorney at the New York Attorney General’s Office who issued the subpoena in an attempt to learn what they can about the investigation underlying the subpoena, and why the client received it. Counsel should also seek as necessary to clarify ambiguous requests, narrow requests that suffer from over-breadth, and seek an appropriate extension of any deadline in the subpoena for production of responsive documents.
Notably, the Martin Act contains no scienter requirement. Courts interpreting the statute have held that the Attorney General does not need proof of an intent to deceive or defraud to begin an investigation or, for that matter, even to initiate an enforcement action.
For example, a lawyer asked to represent several individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in the lawyer's ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each might take because of the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the others.
[8] Even where there is no direct adverseness, a conflict of interest exists if there is a significant risk that a lawyer's ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer's other responsibilities or interests. For example, a lawyer asked to represent several individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in the lawyer's ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each might take because of the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the others. The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. The mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and consent. The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer's independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client.
General Principles. [1] Loyalty and independent judgment are essential elements in the lawyer's relationship to a client. Concurrent conflicts of interest can arise from the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or from the lawyer's own interests. For specific Rules regarding certain concurrent conflicts ...
[21] A client who has given consent to a conflict may revoke the consent and, like any other client, may terminate the lawyer's representation at any time. Whether revoking consent to the client's own representation precludes the lawyer from continuing to represent other clients depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the conflict, whether the client revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the reasonable expectations of the other client and whether material detriment to the other clients or the lawyer would result.
[18] Informed consent requires that each affected client be aware of the relevant circumstances and of the material and reasonably foreseeable ways that the conflict could have adverse effects on the interests of that client . See Rule 1.0 (e) (informed consent). The information required depends on the nature of the conflict and the nature of the risks involved. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the information must include the implications of the common representation, including possible effects on loyalty, confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege and the advantages and risks involved. See Comments [30] and [31] (effect of common representation on confidentiality).
Thus, a lawyer related to another lawyer, e.g., as parent, child, sibling or spouse, ordinarily may not represent a client in a matter where that lawyer is representing another party, unless each client gives informed consent.
[34] A lawyer who represents a corporation or other organization does not, by virtue of that representation, necessarily represent any constituent or affiliated organization, such as a parent or subsidiary. See Rule 1.13 (a). Thus, the lawyer for an organization is not barred from accepting representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter, unless the circumstances are such that the affiliate should also be considered a client of the lawyer, there is an understanding between the lawyer and the organizational client that the lawyer will avoid representation adverse to the client's affiliates, or the lawyer's obligations to either the organizational client or the new client are likely to limit materially the lawyer's representation of the other client.