On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Tax Planning for Domestic & Foreign Partnerships, LLCs, Joint Ventures & Other Strategic Alliances 2017

Released on: Jun. 24, 2017
Running Time: 24:20:40

This three-day seminar has been designed to ensure that all will benefit, from beginners to experts. The first two days will present a logical and comprehensive study of the basic framework and many important intricacies of Subchapter K, an area of the tax law that many believe can be understood only in its totality. The third day will focus on the application of partnership taxation to specific industries, including oil and gas, hedge funds and private equity funds. Throughout this intensive program, emphasis will be given to legislative, regulatory and judicial developments in Subchapter K, as well as important partnership transactions, controversies and trends.  Speakers from Treasury and the IRS will join a number of the more advanced panels in order to discuss cutting-edge issues.

What You Will Learn & Special Features:

  • Overview of partnership income taxation’s place in the overall U.S. tax regime
  • The benefits and detriments of choosing the partnership form
  • Partnership interest basis issues, including allocation of liabilities
  • Advanced topics in joint venture formations
  • Partnership mergers and divisions
  • Troubled partnerships
  • Panel on interesting partnership transactions of the past year
  • Session featuring IRS and Treasury representatives on the government perspective on key partnership issues
  • Partnership audit rules
  • International joint venture issues and planning
  • Private equity passthrough investments
  • Hedge fund structures and tax planning for managers and investors
  • Publicly traded partnerships and the rules of Section 7704
  • Economic substance, judicial doctrines and ethics issues
  • Effects of recent or proposed tax legislation and pending regulatory proposals

The faculty will consist of tax counsel with special expertise in the transactional aspects of structuring partnerships, joint ventures and other strategic alliances, both domestic and international. For some of the more advanced topics, the faculty will be joined by panelists from the IRS and Treasury. Many of the faculty have significant teaching experience and will adopt an approach designed to enable attendees to progress rapidly from an elementary understanding of the rules to the cutting-edge of the most complex of current transactional issues.

Lecture Topics [Total time 24:20:40]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Introduction and Opening Remarks* [00:05:20]
    Clifford M. Warren, Eric B. Sloan, Stephen D. Rose
  • Subchapter K: “The Big Picture” [01:05:45]
    Clifford M. Warren, Eric B. Sloan, Stephen D. Rose
  • The Basics of Basis (not including liabilities) [00:45:15]
    Benjamin H. Rippeon, James G. Tod
  • Advanced Basis Issues: Impact of Liabilities [01:30:25]
    Howard E. Abrams
  • Allocation and Distribution Provisions [01:30:15]
    Todd D. Golub, Craig A. Gerson
  • Implications of Section 704(c) for Negotiating a Partnership Agreement [01:26:30]
    Stephen L. Gordon, Beverly M. Katz
  • Sale, Exchange or Other Disposition of Partnership Interests; Partnership Distributions; Partnership Terminations [01:27:00]
    Stephen D. Rose
  • Transactions Between Partner and Partnership – Sections 707, 704(c)(1)(B), 731, and 737 [01:15:40]
    Benjamin J. Applestein, Eric B. Sloan
  • Adjustments to the Basis of Partnership Assets (Sections 734, 743 and 754) [01:14:50]
    Stuart L. Rosow, William P. Wasserman, Dean S. Shulman
  • Advanced Topics in Joint Venture Formations [01:00:30]
    Phillip Gall, Donald E. Rocap
  • Partnership Mergers and Divisions [00:59:40]
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Compensatory Interests and Other Arrangements Including Options and Phantom Equity [00:59:05]
    Clifford M. Warren, Bahar A. Schippel, Julie A. Divola
  • Troubled Partnerships [00:58:15]
    Christopher T. Kelley, Todd Gluth, James M. Lowy
  • Interesting Partnership Transactions [01:00:05]
    Linda E. Carlisle, Philip B. Wright, Todd D. Keator
  • Hot Topics in Partnership Tax: The Government Perspective [00:59:05]
    Glenn E. Dance, Clifford M. Warren, Eric B. Sloan, Stephen D. Rose
  • New Partnership Audit Rules [00:45:30]
    Glenn E. Dance, Clifford M. Warren, Eric B. Sloan
  • International Joint Venture Issues [01:29:50]
    Brenda L. Zent, Christopher Trump, Paul W. Oosterhuis
  • Private Equity [01:01:55]
    Lewis R. Steinberg, Eric B. Sloan
  • Hedge Funds [00:59:00]
    Philippe Benedict
  • Publicly Traded Partnerships [00:46:45]
    Ryan K. Carney, Glenn E. Dance, Amy L. Sutton
  • Oil and Gas Industry [00:59:55]
    Kevin Richards
  • The Umbrellas of Subchapter K [01:00:30]
    Benjamin J. Applestein, John C. Hart
  • Economic Substance, Judicial Doctrines and Legal Ethics [00:59:35]
    Wendy Abkin, Michael J. Desmond

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • The Partnership Union: Opportunities for Joint Ventures and Divestitures
    Victor Hollender, Dean S. Shulman, Brian D. Krause, Louis S. Freeman
  • Opening Pandora’s Box: Who Is (or Should Be) a Partner?
    Eric B. Sloan
  • The Big Picture (PowerPoint slides)
    Stephen D. Rose, Eric B. Sloan
  • The Basics of Partnership Basis
    William F. Nelson
  • Allocation of Partnership Liabilities Under Section 752 (January 20, 2017)
    Howard E. Abrams
  • Allocation of Partnership Liabilities Under Section 752 (PowerPoint slides)
    Howard E. Abrams
  • Economic, Tax, and Drafting Considerations for Preferred Partnership Interests
    Carlene Y. Miller-Lowry, Todd D. Golub
  • Allocation and Distribution Provision (PowerPoint slides)
    Craig A. Gerson, Karen Lohnes, David S. Raab, Todd D. Golub
  • Making Section 704(c) Sing for You
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Blake D. Rubin
  • Implications of Section 704(c) for Negotiating a Partnership Agreement (Chicago)(PowerPoint slides)
    Andrea Macintosh Whiteway, Andrew W. Needham
  • Implications of Section 704(c) for Negotiating a Partnership Agreement (New York and San Francisco)(PowerPoint slides)
    Stephen L. Gordon, Beverly M. Katz
  • American Bar Association Section of Taxation Comments on Section 751(b) Proposed Regulations
    George C. Howell
  • Partnership Distributions, Terminations and Sales of Partnership Interests (PowerPoint slides)
    Stephen D. Rose
  • Partnership Disguised Sale Rules
    Mark J. Silverman, Aaron P. Nocjar
  • The Proposed Regulations Under Sections 704(c)(1)(C), 734, 743, and 755
    Peter C. Mahoney, William P. Wasserman
  • Partnership Joint Ventures of Operating Business
    William R. Welke, Gregory W. Gallagher, Michael Carew, Donald E. Rocap
  • Advanced Topics in Joint Venture Formations: Planning and Strategies for Intangibles Under Section 197, Contingent Liabilities, and Considerations for Tax Distribution Provisions (PowerPoint slides)
    Rachel L. Cantor, Phillip Gall, Eric Solomon, Donald E. Rocap, Keith Villmow
  • Partnership Mergers and Divisions
    William S. McKee, Sarah L. Brodie, Bradford D. Whitehurst
  • Partnership Mergers & Divisions (New York)(PowerPoint slides)
    William S. McKee, Sarah L. Brodie
  • Section 83(b), Section 409A, Section 457A and Subchapter K
    Linda Z. Swartz
  • A Layman’s Guide to LLC Incentive Compensation
    Linda Z. Swartz
  • Debt Workouts: The Partnership and the Partners
    James B. Sowell
  • Debt Workouts and Restructurings (Chicago and New York)(PowerPoint slides)
    James B. Sowell, Martin D. Pollack, David Polster
  • Interesting Partnership Transactions of the Past Year (PowerPoint slides)
    Suresh T. Advani, Linda E. Carlisle, Todd D. Keator, Philip B. Wright, Jeffrey M. Trinklein
  • The Up-C Revolution
    Gregg Polsky, Adam H. Rosenzweig
  • Transcript of Public Hearing on Proposed Regulations “Disguised Payment for Services” [REG-115452-14]
  • Baker & McKenzie Client Alert: Newly-Enacted Legislation Makes a Sweeping and Radical Overhaul to the Partnership Audit Rules and Will Likely Require a Revision of Most Partnership Agreements (November 17, 2015)
    Richard M. Lipton
  • There’s Something Happening Here What It Is Ain’t Exactly Clear: The New Partnership Audit Rules (PowerPoint slides)
    Eric B. Sloan
  • In Search of a Normative Theory of Partnership Taxation for International Tax (or How We Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Subchapter K)
    Christopher Trump, Mark A. Graham
  • Tilting at Windmills: An Attempt to Bring Meaning to Determining Proportionate Ownership Under Code Sec. 902(c)(7)
    Christopher Trump, Mark A. Graham
  • U.S. Taxation of Private Equity and Hedge Funds
    John (Jay) Soave, Richard M. Lipton
  • Private Equity: Passthrough Investments (PowerPoint slides)
    Lewis R. Steinberg, Eric B. Sloan, David H. Schnabel
  • Hedge Fund Tax Considerations (February 14, 2017)
    David S. Griffel, Philippe Benedict
  • Partnerships in the Public Space
    Eric B. Sloan
  • Publicly Traded Partnerships (PowerPoint slides)
    Amy L. Sutton, Ryan K. Carney
  • Joint Committee on Taxation: Description of Present Law and Select Proposals Relating to the Oil and Gas Industry (JCX-27-11, May 11, 2011)
  • Everyone Out of the Pool! (and into the Tax Partnership) (PowerPoint slides)
    Gary R. Huffman, Kevin M. Richards
  • The Umbrellas of Subchapter K (January 2017)
    John C. Hart
  • The Umbrellas of Subchapter K (PowerPoint slides)
    John C. Hart
  • New Guidance Sheds Light on Economic Substance Doctrine and Related Penalties
    Richard M. Lipton
  • A Short History of Tax Shelters
    Eric Solomon
  • Economic Substance, Judicial Doctrines and Ethics (Chicago and San Francisco)(PowerPoint slides)
    Michael J. Desmond, Wendy Abkin, Richard M. Lipton

Presentation Material


  • The Big Picture
    Stephen D. Rose, Eric B. Sloan, Clifford M. Warren
  • Partnership Basis: Why Do We Care?
    Benjamin H. Rippeon, James G. Tod
  • Allocation of Partnership Liabilities Under Section 752
    Howard E. Abrams
  • Allocation and Distribution Provisions
    Craig A. Gerson, Todd D. Golub
  • Implications of Section 704(c) for Negotiating a Partnership Agreement
    Stephen L. Gordon, Beverly M. Katz
  • Partnership Distributions, Terminations and Sales of Partnership Interests
    Stephen D. Rose
  • Transactions Between Partner and Partnership
    Jennifer H. Alexander, Benjamin J. Applestein
  • Partnership Tax Strategies and Pitfalls Using (And Avoiding The Use Of) The Section 754 Election
    Stuart L. Rosow, Dean S. Shulman, William P. Wasserman
  • Advanced Topics in Joint Venture Formations
    Phillip Gall, Donald E. Rocap
  • Creative Transactional Planning Using the Partnership Merger and Division Regulations
    Blake D. Rubin
  • Troubled Partnerships: 16 Selected Transactional Issues
    Todd Gluth, James M. Lowy
  • Interesting Partnership Transactions of the Past Year
    Linda E. Carlisle, Todd D. Keator, Philip B. Wright
  • There’s Something Happening Here - What It Is Ain’t Exactly Clear: The New Partnership Audit Rules
    Glenn E. Dance, Eric B. Sloan, Clifford M. Warren, Diana L. Wollman
  • International Joint Venture Issues
    Paul W. Oosterhuis, Christopher Trump
  • Private Equity: Passthrough Investments
    Eric B. Sloan, Lewis R. Steinberg
  • Hedge Funds
    Philippe Benedict, David S. Griffel
  • Publicly Traded Partnerships
    Ryan K. Carney, Glenn E. Dance, Amy L. Sutton
  • Everyone Out of the Pool! (and into the Tax Partnership)
    Gary R. Huffman, Kevin Richards
  • The Umbrellas of Subchapter K
    Benjamin J. Applestein, John C. Hart
  • Economic Substance, Judicial Doctrines and Ethics
    Wendy Abkin, Michael J. Desmond
Co-Chair(s)
Stephen D. Rose ~ Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
Eric B. Sloan ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Clifford M. Warren ~ Senior Counsel to the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries), Internal Revenue Service
Speaker(s)
Wendy Abkin ~ Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP
Howard E. Abrams ~ Warren Distinguished Professor and Director of Tax Programs, Harvard Law School
Benjamin J. Applestein ~ Deloitte Tax LLP
Philippe Benedict ~ Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP
Linda E. Carlisle ~ Chief Operating Officer & General Counsel, Unicom Capital LLC
Ryan K. Carney ~ Vinson & Elkins LLP
Glenn E. Dance ~ Grant Thornton LLP
Michael J. Desmond ~ The Law Offices of Michael J. Desmond, APC
Julie A. Divola ~ Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Todd Gluth ~ Cooley LLP
Stephen L. Gordon ~ Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP
John C. Hart ~ Simpson Thacher Bartlett LLP
Beverly M. Katz ~ KPMG LLP
Todd D. Keator ~ Thompson & Knight LLP
Christopher T. Kelley ~ Special Counsel to the Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs & Special Industries), Internal Revenue Service
Paul W. Oosterhuis ~ Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP
Benjamin H. Rippeon ~ Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Donald E. Rocap ~ Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Stuart L. Rosow ~ Proskauer
Bahar A. Schippel ~ Snell & Wilmer L.L.P.
Dean S. Shulman ~ Kirkland & Ellis LLP
Lewis R. Steinberg ~ Head of Structured Solutions;Managing Director Americas M&A, Global Corporate and Investment Banking, Bank of America Merrill Lynch
Amy L. Sutton ~ Deloitte Tax LLP
James G. Tod ~ KPMG LLP
Christopher Trump ~ Deloitte Tax LLP
William P. Wasserman ~ William P. Wasserman, a Professional Corporation
Philip B. Wright ~ Bryan Cave LLP
Brenda L. Zent ~ Special Advisor on International Taxation, Office of Tax Policy, U.S. Department of the Treasury
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.