This event has been postponed due to some technical issues. All the participants will be informed of the dates when it starts. All the best!
Following are the rules that all the participants need to religiously follow in order to stay in the competition. Non-adherence or violation may result in disqualification without any prior notice.
No plagiarism/copy-pasting. The answers should be unique and in one's own words.
The minimum length of the answer has to be 100 words or more.
The quality and authenticity of each answer shall be analyzed by the LCI quality team individually and the decision of the quality team shall be final. Each qualified answer adds 2 points to your score.
Repetitive answers on the same thread would not add to your scorecard.
Participants have to answer only the unattended queries and not the ones that have already been resolved. The direct link to the unattended queries is here - click here
Plz, keep noting the links of the queries that you have answered so the scores can be matched if needed. To make it easier for us and safer for all, you can drop the links on - email@example.com at the end of the day.
Here is a sample answer for you all to follow - click here
(The legal provisions, case laws and link to an a related LCI article)
Any disrespectful or foul comment in the thread would attract disqualification. The decision of the LCI quality team shall be final.
You can add brownie points to your scorecard as well - Sharing the contest poster and tagging 2 friends (On any social media platform) will win you 10 points. Writing a judgment summary gets you 20 and an article gets you 30.
You can drop a mail at firstname.lastname@example.org in case of any query regarding the contest.
A lawyer’s website contained pages describing past successful litigation against Ford. When that lawyer was in trial on a similar claim against Ford, the trial judge ordered the lawyer to remove the website pages during the pendency of the trial so that jurors were not exposed to it. On appeal, two years after the trial was over and the website was restored, the order was found to be an unlawful prior restraint. On Wednesday, Division Six of the Second District Court of Appeal issued the opinion by Justice Steven Z. Perren inSteiner v. Superior Court (Cal. Ct. App., Oct. 30, 2013, 2D CIV. B235347) 2013 WL 5819545. The decision was significant in three respects:
First, it recognized an important limitation on the trial court’s power to curtail an attorney’s free speech rights. The trial court had correctly instructed the jurors not to “Google” the attorneys or conduct independent research. Jurors are presumed to follow such admonitions. (Steiner v. Superior Court, at 14; citing NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1178, 1221). Absent proof that any juror actually violated the court’s admonition, the trial court had no authority to order the trial attorney to take down web pages as a prophylactic measure.