The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.
"Prove It With Figures" displays some of the tools of the social and statistical sciences that have been applied to the proof of facts in the courtroom and to the study of questions of legal importance. It explains how researchers can extract the most valuable and reliable data that can conveniently be made available, and how these efforts sometimes go awry. In the tradition of Zeisel's "Say It with Figures," a standard in the field of social statistics since 1947, it clarifies, in non-technical language, some of the basic problems common to all efforts to discern cause-and-effect relationships. Designed as a textbook for law students who seek an appreciation of the power and limits of empirical methods, the work also is a useful reference for lawyers, policymakers, and members of the public who would like to improve their critical understanding of the statistics presented to them. The many case histories include analyses of the death penalty, jury selection, employment discrimination, mass torts, and DNA profiling. Hans Zeisel was Professor of Law and Sociology Emeritus at the University of Chicago, where he pioneered the application of social science to the law. Earlier, he had a distinguished career in public opinion and market research. He has written on a wide variety of topics, ranging from research methodology and history to law enforcement, juries, and Sheakespeare. He was elected Fellow of the American Statistical Assoication and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and in 1980 he was inducted into the Market Research Hall of Fame. David Kaye is Regents Professor at the Arizona State University, where he teaches evidence and related topics. An author of several law textbooks and treatises, his work also has appeared in journals of
Digitalisierung und die damit einhergehenden Veränderungen der Arbeitswelt stellen das Standardmodell der Beschäftigung als Basis von sozialen Sicherungssystemen zunehmend in Frage. Während sich eine wachsende Zahl an Veröffentlichungen mit deren Folgen für das Arbeitsrecht beschäftigen, bleibt bis heute das Sozialrecht weitgehend ausgeblendet. Das Buch schafft Abhilfe. Es beschäftigt sich mit den wichtigsten Herausforderungen für den sozialen Schutz durch Digitalisierung, dem Zugang zu Sicherungssystemen und deren Finanzierung am Beispiel der Plattformarbeit. Es gibt einen Überblick über nationale Lösungsansätze, analysiert dies in vergleichender Perspektive und stellt sie in einen transnationalen Kontext. Das Buch vereint Fallstudien aus Belgien, Italien, dem Vereinigten Königreich, den Niederlanden, Dänemark, Schweden, Spanien, Frankreich und Estland und behandelt die Herausforderungen, die Reformen für eine Standardsetzung auf EU-Ebene, für die Koordinierung innerhalb der EU und für ihr Verhältnis zum Steuerrecht ausgesetzt sind. Es vermittelt damit neue Einsichten, wie ein "Sozialrecht 4.0" aussehen sollte.
There is a growing interest within law schools in the intersections between law and different areas of social theory. The second edition of this popular text introduces a wide range of traditions in sociology and the humanities that offer provocative, contextual views on law and legal institutions. The book is organised into six sections, each with an introduction by the editors, on classical sociology of law, systems theory, critical approaches, law in action, postmodernism, and law in global society. Each chapter is written by a specialist who reviews the literature, and discusses how the approach can be used in researching different topics. New chapters include authoritative reviews of actor network theory, new legal realism, critical race theory, post-colonial theories of law, and the sociology of the legal profession. Over half the chapters are new, and the rest are revised in order to include discussion of recent literature.
"[This book is a] tool for in-house and outside counsel to help their companies, firms, and clients develop effective CSR programs. The book includes discussions on governance and sustainability, community relations, environmental matters, reporting, stakeholder engagement, aboriginal rights, labor and supply chain practices, and more."--
Amoral, cunning, ruthless, and instructive, this multi-million-copy New York Times bestseller is the definitive manual for anyone interested in gaining, observing, or defending against ultimate control – from the author of The Laws of Human Nature. In the book that People magazine proclaimed “beguiling” and “fascinating,” Robert Greene and Joost Elffers have distilled three thousand years of the history of power into 48 essential laws by drawing from the philosophies of Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, and Carl Von Clausewitz and also from the lives of figures ranging from Henry Kissinger to P.T. Barnum. Some laws teach the need for prudence (“Law 1: Never Outshine the Master”), others teach the value of confidence (“Law 28: Enter Action with Boldness”), and many recommend absolute self-preservation (“Law 15: Crush Your Enemy Totally”). Every law, though, has one thing in common: an interest in total domination. In a bold and arresting two-color package, The 48 Laws of Power is ideal whether your aim is conquest, self-defense, or simply to understand the rules of the game.
This book argues that overcoming people's inability to recognize their own wrongdoing is the most important but regrettably neglected area of the behavioral approach to law.
As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.
