All categories

2 years ago

What potential conflict of interest is presented by a lawmaker accepting an

Law

2 answers:

tankabanditka [31]2 years ago

8 0

Answer:

D. It could influence the lawmaker's view of the organization when voting on new laws

Pavlova-9 [17]2 years ago

5 0

Answer:

A term used to describe the situation in which a public official or fiduciary who, contrary to the obligation and absolute duty to act for the benefit of the public or a designated individual, exploits the relationship for personal benefit, typically pecuniary.

In certain relationships, individuals or the general public place their trust and confidence in someone to act in their best interests. When an individual has the responsibility to represent another person—whether as administrator, attorney, executor, government official, or trustee—a clash between professional obligations and personal interests arises if the individual tries to perform that duty while at the same time trying to achieve personal gain. The appearance of a conflict of interest is present if there is a potential for the personal interests of an individual to clash with fiduciary duties, such as when a client has his or her attorney commence an action against a company in which the attorney is the majority stockholder.

Incompatibility of professional duties and personal interests has led Congress and many state legislatures to enact statutes defining conduct that constitutes a conflict of interest and specifying the sanctions for violations. A member of a profession who has been involved in a conflict of interest might be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the body that granted permission to practice that profession.

You might be interested in

Ozzy recently started working at a new company. He has been solicited several times to join the union of the company, but he wou

Ne4ueva [31]

Hello. This question is incomplete. The full question is:

Ozzy recently started working at a new company. He has been solicited several times to join the union of the company, but he would prefer not to. The union officials tell Ozzy that he won’t be allowed to keep working unless he joins the union. Which of the following is true?

-The union officials are pretending they have a closed shop and can't influence Ozzy's decision.

-The union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.

-Ozzy must now join the union because union shops are always legal.

-Ozzy's requirement to join the union depends on his state of employment.

Answer:

-The union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.

Explanation:

There is a law called the National Labor Relations Act that states that no employee should be required to be part of the union and that membership in the union should not be placed as a requirement for the occupation of a particular labor function. However, some states and some companies may adopt different approaches to their employees and the union.

In some states in the country, although an employee is not required to become a member of a union, they allow an obligation for all employees to be required to pay at least part of the union's dues. In this case, we can say that in relation to the case shown in the question above, the union can't make Ozzy join the union, but it can require him to pay union dues.

7 0

3 years ago

Question 5 of 5: Someone texting or talking spans an average of 27 seconds after they put the phone down are still thinking abou

forsale [732]

The answer is true. Distraction “latency” lasts for about 27 seconds

4 0

2 years ago

YOU HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF ALCOHOL, AND SENTENCED TO 48 HOURS IN JAIL. IN ADDITION, YOU MAY: 1: H

schepotkina [342]

Answer: the answer is 3

Explanation:

When you lose your license you get a certain amount of points added, and the more points you have the harder it is to keep your license. once you lose your license with a certain amount of points you cant get it back

3 0

2 years ago

What is a crime against property?

anzhelika [568]

Answer:

Vandalism

Explanation:

when you damage or destroy someone property

3 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers

Suppose a defendant is convicted at trial but believes that the judge made an error that impacted the decision. She would first

densk [106]

Initially, a defendant's case is at a trial court (Federal, State, Circuit Courts).

Then the case proceeds to the Court of Appeal before finally moving to the Supreme Court of the state or at the federal level.

But it is not true that all cases must move to the Supreme Court when the defendant appeals. The movement to the highest court requires the acceptance of the defendant's argument and the merit of each case.

Thus, the defendant's case can move from a trial court, an appeals court, and then to the supreme court.

Learn more: brainly.com/question/11640159

5 0

2 years ago

Read 2 more answers