December 20, 2013 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
C.A. 4th
G047121
The Fourth Appellate District reversed a judgment. The court held that an attorney’s knowledge of his own malfeasance towards a client could not be imputed first to his law firm, and then from the law firm back to the client so as to trigger the statute of limitations based on the client’s purported “discovery” of the malfeasance.
Presented by BigVoodoo
GlobeSt. Women of Influence Conference celebrates the women who drive the commercial real estate industry forward.
The New York Law Journal honors attorneys and judges who have made a remarkable difference in the legal profession in New York.
The African Legal Awards recognise exceptional achievement within Africa s legal community during a period of rapid change.
CLIENT SERVICES/Hospitality REPRESENTATIVE-FLORIDA OFFICE Prominent mid-Atlantic law firm with multiple regional office locations seeks a f...
Prominent mid-Atlantic law firm with multiple regional office locations seeks a legal practice assistant (LPA) for our Boca Raton, FL. Offic...
Description: Fox Rothschild has an opening in the Philadelphia, PA office for a litigation associate. The ideal candidate will have two to t...
