45 C.F.R. § 1604.4

Permissible outside practice

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

A recipient's written policies may permit a full-time attorney to engage in a specific case or matter that constitutes the outside practice of law if:

(a) The director of the recipient or the director's designee determines that representation in such case or matter is consistent with the attorney's responsibilities to the recipient's clients;

(b) Except as provided in § 1604.7, the attorney does not intentionally identify the case or matter with the Corporation or the recipient; and

(1) Newly employed and has a professional responsibility to close cases from a previous law practice, and does so on the attorney's own time as expeditiously as possible; or

(2) Acting on behalf of him or herself, a close friend, family member or another member of the recipient's staff; or

(3) Acting on behalf of a religious, community, or charitable group; or

(4) Participating in a voluntary pro bono or legal referral program affiliated with or sponsored by a bar association, other legal organization or religious, community or charitable group.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1984–2010 · leading case: LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp.

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2010) ca9 · cites it 2× “[10] Plaintiffs do not explain how LSC's application of the PIR violated the free speech rights of LASO's private donors, nor do they address how OLC, an unrestricted LASO affiliate not subject to the PIR, could suffer an as-applied First Amendment violation.”

Dubose v. Pierce (1984) ctd · cites it 3× “” 45 C.F.R. § 1604.4 (1982). The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) however “has consistently maintained that [ 45 C.”

LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2008) ord “See 45 C.F.R. § 1604.4 . 6 . This is not a circumstance in which the court would be justified in applying "strong medicine .”

LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OR. v. Legal Services Corp. (2009) ca9 · cites it 2× “[10] Plaintiffs do not explain how LSC's application of the PIR violated the free speech rights of LASO's private donors, nor do they address how OLC, an unrestricted LASO affiliate not subject to the PIR, could suffer an as-applied First Amendment violation.”

David Jordan v. City of Greenwood, Mississippi, Etc. v. North Mississippi Rural Legal Services, Inc., Movant-Appellant (1987) ca5 “45 C.F.R. § 1604.4 (1985). It is apparent that neither of these circumstances exists in the instant case.”

Legal Aid Services of Oregon v. Legal Services Corporation (2009) ca9 “See 45 C.F.R. § 1604.4 . 15514 LEGAL AID v. LEGAL SERVICES CORP.”

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.