Total Question


Compleated Test


Total Syllabus


Visitor Counter

Question - 1 : হুম, আমাকে দেখতে দিন ব্যাপারটা |

a) Hum, let me see.

b) Hmm, let me see.

c) Hmm, let me see that.

d) Hmm, let me see this.

Discus in Board
Question - 2 : Do not make a noise while your father -

a) has slept

b) is sleeping

c) asleep

d) is being asleep

Discus in Board
Question - 3 : 'মনপুরা ৭০' কী ?

a) একটি নদী বন্দর

b) একটি উপন্যাস

c) একটি চিত্রশিল্প

d) একটি উপজেলা

Discus in Board
Question - 4 : জাতিসংঘের প্রথম মহাসচিব কে ছিলেন ?

a) উ থান্ট

b) কুর্টওয়ান্ডহইম

c) ট্রাইগভে লাই

d) পেরেজ দ্য কুয়েলার

Discus in Board
Question - 5 : তোমার নিয়মিত দাঁত ব্রাশ করা উচিত |

Discus in Board
Question - 6 : শ্রীকৃষ্ণকীর্তন' কাব্যের বড়ায়ি কী ধরনের চরিত্র ?

a) শ্রী রাধার ননদিনী

b) শ্রী রাধার শাশুড়ি

c) রাধাকৃষ্ণের প্রেমের দূতী

d) জনৈক গোপবালা

Discus in Board
Question - 7 : লেবানন কোন দেশের কাছ থেকে স্বাধীনতা লাভ করে ?

a) স্পেন

b) ব্রিটেন

c) তুরস্ক

d) ফ্রান্স

Discus in Board
Question - 8 : শেভেন চুক্তি হচ্ছে -

a) কর হ্রাস করা চুক্তি

b) বাণিজ্যচুক্তি

c) অবাধ চলাচল সংক্রান্ত চুক্তি

d) এর কোনটি নয়

Discus in Board
Question - 9 : নিঝুম দ্বীপের আয়তন কত ?

a) ৮০ বর্গমাইল

b) ৮২ বর্গমাইল

c) ৮৫ বর্গমাইল

d) ৩৫.১৩৫ বর্গমাইল

Discus in Board
Question - 10 : হাঁ, এইতো |

a) Yes. Here it is too.

b) Yes. Here it is.

c) Yes. it is Here.

d) Yes. Here it.

Discus in Board

Ensuring Communications With Law Firm In-House Counsel

More law offices are utilizing in-house insight to exhort them on potential cases against the firm, just as giving counsel on morals and hazard the executives issues. In Arizona, under A.R.S. 12-2234, with regards to common cases, any correspondences between a lawyer for an association or related substance –, for example, a law office – and a worker or specialist of the organization or related element, made to give lawful guidance or getting data to give lawful counsel, are secured by the lawyer customer benefit.

 The inquiry at that point turns out to be, how can one viably ensure such advantaged interchanges with in-house counsel from revelation should a case later emerge?


 A California choice gives direction on the accepted procedures for securing correspondences with law office in-house counsel. In Palmer v. Unrivaled Court, a customer procured a law office to indict a claim. Shelton was the accomplice in control. The customer before long undermined cases against the firm, yet demanded it keep speaking to him until he held substitute insight. During that period, Shelton counseled with two lawyers inside the firm, Swope and Christman, about the customer's objections.

 At the point when the customer later sued the firm and Shelton for negligence, the firm affirmed that correspondences among Shelton and the in-house counsel were favored. The firm submitted proof that Swope was the association's General Counsel and Christman was its Claims Counsel, and that they shared duty on claims dealing with and misfortune counteractive action. In-house counsel had numerous correspondences exhorting Shelton about reacting to the customer's objections and on the best way to deal with the customer relationship. Swope and Christman appointed another accomplice to administer arrangement of pleadings for the customer, who spoke with Shelton as their "appointee." The firm didn't charge the customer for time brought about by Swope, Christman or their "representative."