25 C.F.R. § 88.1

Employment of attorneys

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Indian tribes organized pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934 (48 Stat. 984; 25 U.S.C. 461-479), as amended, may employ legal counsel. The choice of counsel and the fixing of fees are subject under 25 U.S.C. 476 to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative.

(b) Attorneys may be employed by Indian tribes not organized under the Act of June 18, 1934, under contracts subject to approval under 25 U.S.C. 81 and the Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950, 5 U.S.C. 481, note, by the Secretary of the Interior or his authorized representative.

(c) Any action of the authorized representative of the Secretary of the Interior which approves, disapproves or conditionally approves a contract pursuant to paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall be final.

(d) Practice of such attorneys before the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior is subject to the requirements of 43 CFR 1.1 through 1.7.

[27 FR 11548, Nov. 24, 1962. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 3 cases, 1977–2011 · leading case: Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151 (Alaska 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Atkinson v. Haldane, 569 P.2d 151 (Alaska 1977). · cites it 2× “[16] The regulations on this topic, as amended, promulgated after the Metlakatla case, are found in 25 C.F.R. §§ 88.1 -.6 (1976). [17] However, in a companion case, Organized Village of Kake v.”

Miami Nation of Indians of Indiana v. Babbitt, 112 F. Supp. 2d 742 (N.D. Ind. 2000). “The Miamis say the Department’s analysis suggests that the Miamis would have to elect their leaders formally to satisfy the perceived requirement of bilateral political relations, but the Miamis didn’t historically engage in formal elections, and 25 C.F.R. § 88.1 (i) provides…”

Wasson v. Pyramid Lake Paiute Tribe, 782 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (D. Nev. 2011). “Plaintiffs cite to 25 C.F.R. § 88.1 (a) for the proposition that Mr.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.