Thursday, May 7, 2015

May Flowers


  • February bar exam results came out yesterday. With a 61% pass rate, we're adding some 135 new lawyers to our ranks. Welcome!
  • The Nevada Legislature is considering some changes to the law that will impact family law and how courts look at family reunification. [RJ]
  • Here's a look at the sanctions against Glen Lerner in New Orleans in BP oil spill cases. [RJ]
  • Another class-action lawsuit was filed in federal court against Manny Pacquiao. [RJ]
  • Governor Sandoval signed into law SB 177 which allows a person to designate a caregiver when admitted to a hospital. 

21 comments:

  1. What sanctions can the State Bar apply to Glen Lerner, Esq.?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're kidding, right? Bar Counsel will take one look at Dominic Gentile and immediately soil himself. Everyone knows that.

      Delete
    2. Disbarment? Any takers?

      Delete
    3. The State Bar eventually taking absolutely no action is far more likely than disbarment. Bar Counsel has neither the resources nor the legal acumen to take on a guy with Lerner's resources.

      Years ago, some thought that the State Bar might take on some of the lawyers thought to be associated with the 'medical mafia'. The State Bar did exactly nothing and only suspended one peripheral player after he pled guilty to a felony in Federal Court.

      In other words, if some day the United States Attorney ends up prosecuting Lerner for a felony and gets a guilty plea or a conviction, then maybe the State Bar will seek a suspension.

      Disbarment? Are you kidding? Only small-time solo practitioners who screw up their trust accounts, leave a paper trail, and have no resources to defend themselves get disbarred.

      Delete
    4. 11:37 that's just silly.

      Delete
  2. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. (sob)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I hear Gordon Silver rumblings - anyone else??????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rumble, rumble, rumble . . .

      Delete
    2. I know more folks are jumping ship but I hear that it is department specific, some are doing better than others...?

      Delete
    3. Gabriel Blumberg is still there so they should be fine.

      Delete
    4. Don't know this guy, but that's mean man. He's a 2011 associate. I think those guys are off limits for anonymous chat blog hate b

      Delete
  4. Dead blog...blog is dead....

    ReplyDelete
  5. ADKT 504 is scheduled for hearing on July 1st. It would allow citation to unpublished opinions of the Nevada Supreme Court (but they would not be "mandatory precedent" whatever that means). Thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the choice to make things unpublished is very calculated, would hate to unleash bad rulings even just as guidance...

      Delete
    2. That means they're not binding authority. Lower courts don't have to follow them, but can follow their analyses. That also means that the NVSC doesn't have any obligation to follow them under stare decisis.

      Doesn't matter much. Most of those opinions usually rely on another case for their reasoning, so it's easy enough to get around that "orders aren't authority" stuff.

      Delete
    3. I'm thinking that we will get a lot more two or three line orders affirming. Your client won't know why it cost so much to get three lines and you won't be able to explain why you lost.

      Delete
    4. The Supreme Court (and now Appellate Court) is/are paid to decide cases that give litigants and practitioners guidance. The fact that the appellate courts issue "orders" that then cannot be cited to as precedent is laughable. "We care enough to issue a decision, but enough to give it enough thought/time/analysis to make it count." With the dearth of case law in this state, every decision should be citable. Period.

      Delete
    5. Have you read those decisions? They are filled with erroneous facts, sloppy reasoning and ends-oriented analysis. Most are written by clerks with less than a year of experience. I don't want to have to battle citation of these shoddy decisions.

      Delete
    6. You mean I can't cite to them now?

      Delete
    7. yup, currently it's an ethical violation to cite an unpublished Nevada supreme court dispo order. I think that parties and lawyers should be able to say, look, in this other case you ruled this way on similar facts and dealing with similar legal arguments; if you're not going to rule the same way now you should explain it. They can ignore you but at least under the revision proposed they can't sanction you for making the point that consistency matters.

      Delete
    8. @3:26,

      How does that distinguish them from the published opinions? I respect the robe, but the people doing the writing are some of most ends-driven BS artists this state has to offer.

      Delete