Illinois Supreme Court adopts rule to clarify UPL concerns for in-house counsel; Creates road-block for in-house counsel wishing to change jobs
Corporate Law Departments, March 2004
QDRO processing costs can be allocated to individual accounts
Corporate Law Departments, January 2004
Records management for Illinois insurers—What’s missing from the Illinois Supreme Court’s decision in Guillen v. Potomac Ins. Co. of Ill.?
Corporate Law Departments, March 2003
An employer’s guide to child support withholding in Illinois
Corporate Law Departments, January 2003
An in-house counsel’s guide to the Employee Polygraph Protection Act
Corporate Law Departments, October 2002
Does UPL by in-house counsel really waive the attorney-client privilege?
Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy, March 2002
Unauthorized practice of law and in-house counsel
Commercial Banking, Collections, and Bankruptcy, March 2002
Does UPL by in-house counsel really waive the attorney-client privilege?
Environmental and Natural Resources Law, December 2001
Unauthorized practice of law and in-house counsel
Environmental and Natural Resources Law, December 2001
Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases of interest to in-house counsel
Corporate Law Departments, August 2001
Recent U.S. Supreme Court cases of interest to in-house counsel
Corporate Law Departments, July 2001
An in-house counsel’s guide to dealing with cybersquatters: Part II (the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)
Corporate Law Departments, March 2001
An in-house counsel’s guide to dealing with cybersquatters— part I (ICCAN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy)
Corporate Law Departments, February 2001
U.S. Supreme Court holds that an order compelling arbitration and dismissing underlying claim is a final decision within the meaning of §16 of the Federal Arbitration Act.
Corporate Law Departments, February 2001
California law now exempts highly paid tech professionals from OT rules
Corporate Law Departments, January 2001
Fifth Circuit holds that a demand letter constitutes “other paper” for purposes of 28 USC § 1446(b) which requires defendant to remove to federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction within 30 days of receiving the letter
Corporate Law Departments, January 2001
Seventh Circuit addresses diversity jurisdiction when defendant is a member corporation
Corporate Law Departments, December 2000
10th Circuit explains Kolstad requirements for defending Title VII actions in Cadena v. The Pacesetter Corporation, (10th Cir. 2000)
Corporate Law Departments, November 2000
Ninth Circuit rules that government attorneys can speak ex parte with employees of represented companies when the employee initiates the communications.
Corporate Law Departments, November 2000
Spot an error in your article? Contact Celeste Niemann at cniemann@isba.org. For information on obtaining a copy of an article, visit the ISBA Newsletters page.