Friday, June 8, 2012

LVLB's First Birthday!

Believe it or not, it was exactly one year ago this afternoon that LVLB was born.  I had little time on my hands, and even less to actually blog about, but I knew I wanted needed to maintain my connection with the Las Vegas legal community.  The individuals who used to maintain WWLB had abandoned that ship  at least six months earlier, and  Elle and the LVLL had  suddenly and unexpectedly  disappeared.  Although I mostly lurked on those two sites, I would visit them religiously several times each day just to make sure I wasn't missing anything important - who was firing, who was hiring, whether and to what extent I was being paid less and working harder than my colleagues, who was embarrassing themselves, who was making a name for themselves, etc.  For several weeks, I waited patiently for someone to grab the torch.  When it began to look like no one was going to pick up where the last two blogs left off, however, I figured I might as well attempt to fill the void myself.

One year later, not much has changed.  I still have little time on my hands, and I still don't have much to blog about (in case you haven't noticed).  I do my best, however, to cover the relevant Las Vegas legal news, rumors, gossip, etc., as it happens.  I realize the quantity and quality of LVLB is still a far cry from what you were accustomed to with WWLB and LVLL, but with help from JD and you, the loyal readers, I think we have managed to get the job done.  Thanks, everyone, for reading, commenting, providing tips, and also for the occasional words of encouragement!

Now, on to the stuff that brought you here:

Nancy Quon's death has officially been ruled a suicide by the Clark County Coroner's Office. 

For those hose of you who wanted to see who made Nevada Business Magazine's "Legal Elite" list, click here.

Finally, be glad you don't work with this guy.*

What else is going on out there?

Thanks for the tip, tipster! 

35 comments:

  1. Sad about Nancy. It demonstrates that happiness doesn't come from money or possessions.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think we should take the coroner's determination with a grain of salt ... lots of people have lots to lose in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Congratulations on making it through the first year. As a fellow lurker, I too enjoy checking in to see what is going on. Keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Judge Vega in trouble -- charged with judicial misconduct

    http://www.lvrj.com/news/judge-vega-charged-with-judicial-misconduct-158165165.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. Does anyone know who filed the Complaint against Judge Vega? Or did the Judicial Committee just act on its own motion?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm sorry but that list of Legal Elite 150 Best Lawyers? Include several lawyers who have less than 5 years of practice, including one (just happens to be the offspring of well-off attorneys) with just one year of practice. C'mon!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ 11:29

    Agreed. Hard to take this list seriously. Especially when several of the attorneys have less than 1 year's experience as a practicing attorney (having served as law clerks for 1-2 years prior), even though they are listed as 3-year attorneys. Do they determine "length of time practicing" to be the same as "length of time barred"? BIG difference.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sure, Vega abuses the privileges of being a judge. Most of them do. But her ongoing incompetence, even after close to two decades on the bench, is even more troubling. How does she manage to retain her seat?

    I wish I could leave my clients' work any time I want in order to attend my kids' soccer practices.

    The best we should expect is a minor slap on the wrist. Oh, and a landslide re-election the next time her seat is up.

    Does anyone think the weak-minded Clark County electorate gives a rip about something like this. Numerous big campaign signs . . . that's the true qualification for being a Nevada judge. That, and the ability to be bought off.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why does the Legal Elite even bother having an "up and coming" portion if it allows the junior associates to be part of the Legal Elite? If it imposed a rule that you can't be selected as a "Legal Elite" without at least 5/10 years in practice, it would resolve the lack of experience issue.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Wow. Hard to believe it's been a year already. I am a lurker as well, but wanted to post today to say congratulations and keep up the good work.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think all of the big firms where the attorneys nominate each other should realize they're destroying all credibility by nominating new attorneys.

    It's an insult to Neil Galatz to be on the same list as someone with less than ten years of practice.

    ReplyDelete
  12. My best wishes and gratitude to LVLB. It does what it does, and does so just fine, naysayers notwithstanding. Many Happy Returns of the Day!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Does anyone really believe that a woman would intend to be found dead in a bathtub?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The Legal Elite is ridiculous. If that's representative of other items put out by Nevada Business Magazine, then I suppose nothing I ever read in that magazine will ever have any credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  15. June 8, 2012 3:11 PM, or anyone:

    Would you be willing to share more information about your experiences with Mr. Galatz? Cases against or with him? All I know is that his bar no. is 3.

    Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  16. While Neil has been practicing a long time, Bar numbers for those who have been practicing before about 1992 don't mean anything. None of us had bar numbers when we first started practicing here. When they were instituted, they were assigned based on when you paid your dues.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree with the comments about the Legal Elite. 90% of the names on the list are unrecognizable.

    ReplyDelete
  18. 6/8 @ 4:59 - Thanks for the bar number explanation. Do you have any experience with Mr. Galatz?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Neil Galatz is a pre-eminent litigator in Las Vegas for decades. His practice has focused on plaintiff-side personal injury litigation and trial work for as long as I've known him. He is widely respected. He was formerly a partner of Judge Alan Earl. Galatz never became involved in some of the case-fixing and judge-buying activities that some of the other supposedly "big-time" plaintiffs' attorneys have engaged in.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thank you 6/12!

    ReplyDelete
  21. I was recently named on a "list." I'm not as green as the people that are generally being scoffed at here for making this list but my bar number isn't 3 either. I think I'm a good attorney, but neither am I some rock star. I'm not sure how I ended up on the list as there was no campaign by my firm. Honestly, it just makes no sense. I suspect maybe someone at The List is secretly stalking me or something. To those who see my name on the list and scoff at me, I'm sorry! I agree with you!

    ReplyDelete
  22. There is no humble way to show off.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Can't get credit if you don't say something. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Any news of the Jones Vargas implosion? Was Raggio the only thing keeping that firm together?

    ReplyDelete
  25. 10:45 and 4:14: how exactly is an ANONYMOUS post "showing off" or "getting credit" for anything? Idiots.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Testy much 7:11. Tiny little ego bruised by the big bad comments? Maybe it's those people from "The List" that are "stalking you or something." Don't scoff at them. Don't force them to boil your pet rabbit. Shiver.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Not sure how this escaped comment in Last Week's Friday Funday Blog

    http://www.nevadajudiciary.us/index.php/supnews/1566-3-finalists-named-for-each-of-the-two-judicial-vacancies-in-the-eighth-judicial-district-court

    ReplyDelete
  28. Seems like the selection committee is a little heavy on government lawyers

    ReplyDelete
  29. 11:31 - as a matter of fact, it does not bruise my ego in the slightest so please continue making stupid comments. Just can't believe that someone on one of the "lists" isn't all smug about it. I don't give a rat's ass about the "list," but it's pretty entertaining that your comments betray your bitterness. What you take as "testiness" in a post is bemusement at your illogical and dopey comments

    ReplyDelete
  30. Yeah, well I'm rubber and your glue.

    My bitterness is betrayed. Ugh. It was bound to happen sometime. I've always been Illogical and dopey. It's my charm.

    I think what bothers you was best said by June 12 @ 10:45. Bragging about being on a list, in any context, even through your contrived contempt for it, is still just bragging.

    Perhaps someday I'll be on a list and I too will tell the world how embarrassed I am by it.

    Take that you little prick!

    ReplyDelete
  31. I meant "you're glue."

    See how dopey I am.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 12:38 PM: I think the opposite is true. Ask a federal judge or law clerk who does the best work, and several AFPDs and AUSAs will be mentioned well before the majority of the attorneys on the list. I would put at least 25 more Nevada AFPDs and AUSAs on the list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think many of the best in town are on the list but it's still a bogus list because of the massive number of inexperienced attorneys with five years experience or less.

      Delete
  33. 11:30....And if you ask the majority of Justice of the Peace, they would list several PDs and DAs will be mentioned well before the majority of the attorneys on the list and none of the AFPDs and AUSAs will be mentioned. Law is parochial; it is the nature of law that we rate what we know.

    My experience with many of the AUSAs (and to lesser extent AFPDs) is not in the least bit as flattering as you indicate. Many AUSAs seem to have a much higher impression of themselves than many attorneys in private practice have of them, with a few examples believing that they are capable of generating non-odoriferous feces.

    ReplyDelete
  34. 12:13 PM

    You're entitled to your opinion. The only point I'll make is that federal judges and their clerks see the work of government attorneys as well as private attorneys, so I think they have a unique ability to compare the work of both government and private attorneys. In other words, they’re not “rating what they know” by thinking highly of government attorneys.

    When I was a clerk, I saw the work of most of the best regarded private attorneys in town. So it's not the case that I'm comparing government attorneys to private attorneys I've never seen before. Also, I'm currently a private attorney, so if anything I'm biased toward that team.

    ReplyDelete