In the wake of last week’s landmark federal court decision that deemed Google an illegal monopoly, Google’s foes are stepping up efforts to craft a legal case for something unthinkable until recently: the internet giant’s breakup.
Despite concerns about copyright issues, the State Bar of California and Kaplan Exam Services signed an agreement allowing the company best known for test prep to create multiple-choice, essays and performance test questions for a California Bar Exam for use starting in February 2025.
Racial disparities among law school applicants persist, according to the AccessLex Institute’s Legal Education Data Deck.
“The court hearing is set for Sept. 13, but I plan to request to have the date shortened,” Ryan Griffith, attorney for the alums and students, and an adjunct professor at and graduate of the Golden Gate University School of Law, told the ABA Journal via email.
As the National Conference of Bar Examiners sunsets the Uniform Bar Exam in 2028, other pathways to practice outside of its exam offerings are emerging, leaving some to question the NCBE’s hold on controlling licensure.
While it’s clear that legal technology is necessary, what’s not so crystal is determining which legal tech company will be the best fit for your law firm.
A federal appeals court has granted habeas to a death row inmate who challenged his sentencing, holding that an Ohio judge displayed an objective risk of bias partly because he enlisted the prosecutor to write the death-penalty opinion.
DEI training is coming under special scrutiny, with at least seven court cases pending nationwide alleging that it constitutes workplace discrimination.
As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Neil M. Gorsuch sees it, an explosion in the complexity of the nation’s regulations is overburdening Americans and often trampling their rights and livelihoods.
A federal judge’s ruling that Google broke the law to maintain a monopoly in search has dealt a blow to one of Big Tech’s main arguments against regulation: that America’s antiquated antitrust laws aren’t flexible enough to address the fast-changing nature of tech innovation.
