Friday, September 25, 2015

The Low Bar


  • Is the bar too low to get into law school? Here are some op-eds on the topic. [New York Times]
  • After two hours of argument yesterday, Judge Richard Boulware is set to issue a decision on a new TRO regarding Silverstone Golf Course. [RJ]
  • The Nevada Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction. [RJ]
  • The Court also ruled that that NRCP 11 does not supersede NRS 7.085 when it comes to sanctioning lawyers [Watson Rounds v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.] and that Nevada follows California's Cumis rule that requires an insurer to provide independent counsel for the insured when there is an actual conflict of interest between the insurer and insured [State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Hansen]
  • Do you have between 3 and 7 years of experience as a lawyer and need a new job? Shark Pimp Jordan Ross is looking for a few good candidates. [Ross Legal Search]

15 comments:

  1. 5 years of experience, about $85K in salary. I can see why the Shark Pimp wants to exclude in-house and public attorneys. Any public attorney or in-house counsel with 5 years of experience as a litigator would laugh in his face at being approach for such low-ball wages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah. The wage range for these jobs is ridiculous.

      Delete
    2. Man, I agree. Is this Wilson Elser or some other insurance defense mill?

      Delete
    3. $80,000 in salary at 1,800 in billable hours is less than $45 an hour for someone who has 5 years of experience as a litigator. And, that position expects billable hours "well north" of 1,800 hours.

      Holy shit. Is the market that bad?

      Delete
    4. What I suggest that many of you have missed is the fact that this position has a higher proportion of the compensation pegged to productivity, not just to showing up. With that factored in the compensation is competitive for a mid-level 5 or fewer years out.

      Delete
    5. The best way to tie productivity to compensation is to be a solo.

      Delete
    6. 9:34 is absolutely correct. And I will add that the best way to find out that you suck way more than you think you do is to go solo and then realize that the phone wasn't ringing in your former office because of you. It's a great way to then appreciate what you had before --- a paying job.

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for your comment; however, this blog generally isn't the place for this particular type of rumor, gossip, etc. Generally speaking, if this type of information becomes otherwise newsworthy on its own, then perhaps it becomes appropriate to post here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Damn, I missed the salacious gossip.

      Delete
  4. And speaking of Advance Opinions, Gary Logan is breathing a huge sigh of relief today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems odd that Cory would have dismissed Logan's complaint for failure to physically attach the expert affidavit. Something else must have been going on. Good luck to Logan.

      Delete
    2. Fail to comply with staute: eh, the Supremes will let it slide.
      Fail to comply with a SCR or NRAP: The Supremes will ream out your arsehole, fine you, and possibly refer you for discipline.

      Delete
    3. I don't know why anyone would file their affidavit separately from the complaint. Under the circumstances here, the Court's decision makes sense, and I think they are correct to back off a bit from the rather extreme "void ab initio" position taken in Fierle and other cases. But I agree that this makes it tough to know exactly where the line is drawn.

      Delete
    4. The Supremes got it right. The affidavit was filed five judicial hours after the complaint was filed and the complaint referenced the affidavit at length. Why plaintiff's counsel would do that is beyond me, but it's hard to see why you would boot the complaint because it did not physically attach the affidavit to the filing.

      Delete