NEXT
Sign in to follow
Search Results

0 results for 'Fox Rothschild LLP'

You can use to get even better search results Fox Rothschild LLP
September 24, 2010 | New Jersey Law Journal

2010 Ineligible List

Attorney Ineligibility Order Pursuant to Rule 1:28-2(a)
452 minute read
September 26, 2011 | New Jersey Law Journal

Attorney Ineligibility Order Pursuant to Rule 1:28-2(a)

Notice to the bar.
483 minute read
December 07, 2010 | The Legal Intelligencer

Frost v. Fox Rothschild, LLP, PICS Case No. 10-3543 (C.P. Philadelphia Nov. 12, 2010) Lachman, J. (16 pages).

Expert testimony was required to establish the standard of care and the breach of that standard because plaintiff's claims of legal malpractice were beyond the ordinary knowledge or experience of a layperson.
3 minute read
November 22, 2010 | New Jersey Law Journal

Ineligible In-House Counsel, Multijurisdictional Practitioners and Pro Hac Vice Attorneys

Notice to the bar.
170 minute read
September 25, 2008 | New Jersey Law Journal

2008 Ineligible List

Notice to the bar.
440 minute read
November 16, 2011 | New York Law Journal

Looking Back at Significant 2011 Cases

In his Law Firm Partnership Law column, Arthur J. Ciampi, the managing member of Ciampi LLC, writes that this year saw interesting decisions and actions in New York state and federal courts which addressed issues affecting law firms in the bankruptcy context, challenged the ban on non-lawyer investors in law firms, applied res judicata to limit duplicative claims in law firm partnership disputes, construed law firm agreements concerning amounts owing to former partners, and applied CPLR 3213 in the law firm context.
9 minute read
September 26, 2005 | Law.com

2005 Revoked List

Notice to the bar.
401 minute read
November 23, 2009 | New York Law Journal

*Ernest E. Badway

Ernest Badway, a graduate of Duke University School of Law, is a partner with the firm of Fox Rothschild LLP. He currently represents corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, and
7 minute read
May 29, 2007 | The Legal Intelligencer

Hess v. Fox Rothschild

Because the reasons for the trial court's ruling were not discernable from the record, plaintiffs were forced to file a vague Rule 1925(b) statement and it would be unjust to consider such filing a violation of the rule. Affirmed.
1 minute read

More from ALM

More from ALM

Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.

Resources

  • Aligning Client Needs with Lawyer Growth and Profitability

    Brought to you by BigHand

    Download Now

  • Technology to Make E-Discovery Smarter, Not Harder

    Brought to you by Nuix

    Download Now

  • Does Generative AI Have the Power to Transform Legal Services?

    Brought to you by HaystackID

    Download Now

  • International Export and Trade Assistance State Law Survey

    Brought to you by LexisNexis®

    Download Now