Which Law Is Described as the New Legal Horizon

Stephanie Hamon celebrated her third year in business and spoke to Artificial Lawyer about the growth of legal operations consulting at Norton Rose Fulbright, what legal operations means to her, and how law firms are challenging the Big Four. In this interview, Stephanie explains that legal operations is “more of a mindset than a role” and a catalyst for the legal team to create value for the business by being strategic rather than just a cost center. If the single appeal procedure is successful, the decision will have the same effect as a decision taken by the Supreme Court in a single procedure – i.e. it will be published in the Hungarian Official Gazette, which means that the decision not only binds the parties to a dispute, but also binds the courts to rule on the same point of law in the future. The latest reform introduces the unitary appeal as a new remedy that can be used: in the previous appeal system, a final decision of the second instance could be challenged before the Supreme Court by an application for judicial review. There was only one appeal against a Supreme Court judgment in judicial review proceedings – namely the constitutional appeal, whereby a review of the unconstitutional judgment could be sought before the Constitutional Court. The above-mentioned practice whereby higher courts, as quasi-legislators, issue general directives, has often been criticised by the Venice Commission. The Council of Europe therefore seeks to ensure consistency of case law through judicial decisions in individual cases. (4) The objectives of the reform must not be called into question. However, it remains to be seen whether the above-mentioned amendments will increase legal certainty in Hungary.

With regard to the practical difficulties of reform, it should be noted that the Supreme Court has issued approximately 40,000 judgments. Since 1 April 2020, all these decisions have the same legal effect. Alabama wants the Supreme Court to take a “racially neutral” approach to district redivision that would effectively eliminate the power behind Section 2, which currently prohibits any law that intends, or has the effect of denying or restricting the right to vote “on the basis of race or color.” Since the passage of the VRA in 1965, Section 2 has been used in the reclassification of constituency disputes to eliminate cards that dilute the electoral strength of minority voters by “packing” and “cracking” them in districts to prevent a particular minority from voting for their preferred candidates, even though the minority group represents a significant portion of the state`s electorate. With regard to the new extraordinary remedy, the unitary appeal, this additional remedy, in addition to the fact that the President of the Supreme Court has relatively broad powers because he can choose the judges who will rule on complaints, is likely to delay the dispute. A “racially neutral” baseline would deprive minority groups of crucial protection in political systems where a permanent legacy of discrimination has left them in separate communities with different political interests. A “racially neutral” redivision will invite states to turn a blind eye to already marginalized groups and let their members perish in districts where the politically hostile majority group systematically outperforms them. It`s a recipe for white-dominated state governments and congressional delegations, black disenfranchisement, and racial apartheid. For more information, please contact Richard Schmidt of SMARTLEGAL Schmidt & Partners by phone (+36 1 490 09 49) or by e-mail ([email protected]). The SMARTLEGAL Schmidt & Partners website is available at smartlegal.hu.

At first glance, this seems like a great opportunity for legal representatives to find the most appropriate Supreme Court decisions to support their client`s case. However, this huge legal database has not been properly organized; As a result, it will complicate litigation and delay proceedings in the short term. If a court is faced with a legal dispute and a previous court has ruled on the same or closely related issue, the court will make its decision in accordance with the decision of the previous court. The court which ruled on the previous instance must be binding on the court; Otherwise, the previous decision is only convincing. In Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises, the United States The Supreme Court described the reasoning behind stare decisis as “promoting the impartial, predictable and consistent development of legal principles, fostering confidence in judicial decisions, and contributing to the real and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Perhaps because Horizon Scanning has been turned into a commodity as a free “value-added” service and therefore does not receive the necessary investment, law firm updates are sometimes considered too legalistic, too time-consuming or irrelevant. If in-house legal teams need to receive updates, these are: Horizon scanning, the process of monitoring what`s coming in terms of new laws and regulations, is nothing new. This has been an important aspect of an in-house lawyer`s responsibilities for many years and an important opportunity for legal teams to add value at the board level and shape the direction of their business.