Search

Magistrates, judges and prosecutors, as the main actors on the legal scene, do not benefit from absolute immunity, therefore they can be held legally liable, which wears the five forms, respectively: criminal, civil, moral, contraventional and disciplinary. To avoid this, magistrates must demonstrate good faith and responsibility, both professionally and personally. In the paper, special emphasis is placed on disciplinary liability, indicating what constitutes disciplinary misconduct, what is its structure and what are disciplinary violations, as well as disciplinary sanctions with the addition of examples from the practice of the two sections of the Superior Council of Magistracy, as a disciplinary court, as well as the panel of 5 judges of the ÎCCJ, as an appeals court. At the end, the disciplinary process is presented, indicating the stages that must be completed in order to bring the magistrate judge or prosecutor to disciplinary responsibility. In the paper, I proposed by law ferenda, the addition within article 271 of Law no. 303/2022 regarding the status of judges and prosecutors of the disciplinary offense of noncompliance with the decisions of the Constitutional Court or the decisions issued by the ÎCCJ, in the resolution of appeals in the interest of the law and in the prior resolution of some legal issues; because there is an extremely high risk that the magistrates will not give importance to these decisions, since their non-compliance is no longer provided as a disciplinary offence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Note examines the unsettled relationship between defamation and negligence. The law of defamation, through the torts of libel and slander, constitutes a well-developed and complex body of state common law and constitutional considerations. However, some claims for reputational harm may fall outside of this framework, as the law of defamation does not account for all of the ways that an individual's reputation may be injured. Thus, plaintiffs sometimes bring negligence claims to seek redress for damage to reputation. When a plaintiff brings a negligence claim for pure reputational harm, the court is faced with a variety of options for handling the claim. This Note argues that courts should adopt a multistep approach to handling such claims. The court should first determine whether the claim is communication-based or not. If it is a noncommunieative claim, it should be allowed to stand as a simple negligence claim. If however, the claim is communication-based, it should be presumptively displaced by the torts of libel and slander. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the law of foreign sovereign immunity in the U.S. and analyzes the role of legal enforcement in the sovereign debt markets. It reflects on the abandoning of the doctrine of absolute immunity by the U.S. and examines court cases by private claimants against foreign governments. It explains the effect of debt litigation on ongoing sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone.

The article focuses on the immunity of expert witnesses in Canada. Topics include the recovery of compensation in cases of an ineffective expert witness, witness immunity from civil suits, and the prohibition of retaliatory lawsuits against expert witnesses. Information is provided on the liability of an adverse expert witness.

The article discusses professional obligation of attorneys and reflects on the legal community's adherence to competence, advocacy and ethics. It describes three main obligations of lawyers including zealously representing the client, defending the judicial system and serving those who do not have access to the law. It highlights the application of absolute immunity in a defamation case Del Monaco v. Tray which is on writ of certiorari to the Florida Supreme Court.

The article describes the structure of self-regulatory organizations (SROs) and examines the absolute legal immunity granted to SROs such as Financial Industry Regulatory Authority in the U.S. It discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case Standard Investment Chartered Inc. v. National Association of Securities Dealers in which the court held that alleged fraud claims against defendant National Association cannot be proceeded as it had sovereign immunity against lawsuits.

The article discusses judicial immunity in the wake of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit's ruling in the case Hemminghaus v. Missouri which deals with Missouri's plan for judicial selection and a question regarding how a judicial employee might properly deal with suspected child abuse. An absolute immunity doctrine is examined, along with the U.S. Supreme Court cases Stump v. Sparkman and Mireles v. Waco which address judges' immunity. A qualified immunity doctrine is assessed.