Thursday, January 28, 2016

Just Another Thursday


  • Could a change to election law result in people filing for office as part of a strategy to get someone else elected? [RJ]
  • Surprise! Insurance fraud can land you in jail. [RJ]
  • There is a Family Division Bench Bar meeting today. [eighthjdcourt blog]
  • Is the fact that the judges on the Nevada Court of Appeals used to be district court judges unfairly affect their decision making process? [Las Vegas Tribune]

17 comments:

  1. Question: why, after paying hundreds of dollars for CLEs and hundreds of dollars for bar dues, do we have to pay the CLE board another $40? Such a waste of money.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because the Bar puts on CLEs, it would be a conflict of interest to have the Bar regulate CLE so there is a separate Board and a small staff that is paid for by the $40.

      Delete
    2. The Supreme Court is looking at overhauling the system with the CLE Board and have the providers pay five dollars a head in their classes/programs. Not sure it would be a good idea to have the State Bar which has one of the highest dues in the country run everything. Service at the State Bar is not so good. Never had a problem with the CLE Board. I would like to see them do away with the annual $40.00 per attorney.

      Delete
    3. My organization puts on a lot of free CLEs. Would the requirement of $5 a head still apply?
      My opinion of the State Bar (not the CLE Board) staff is pretty bad.

      Delete
    4. Sorry, but the conflict of interest claim is a canard. The State Bar charges money for, drafts, administers the Bar Exam, right (i.e., a provider)? And the State Bar regulates people who pass the bar exam when they become licensees, right (i.e., a regulator)? Why is this any different than CLE?

      Delete
  2. I have a better idea: get rid of the State Bar and have the CLE Board take over those functions. My experience with the CLE Board staff is that they are capable, friendly and responsive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mega dittos..........Why are our bar dues with the State Bar so high? They can't even run a website, run discipline, and who knows what else. The bar is growing. Our dues should be going down as their are more members. Maybe break up the State Bar--it is currently a unified bar. Pay for your license (admission) and then decide if you want to be a member of the Bar Association. See the ABA stuff and what they did in our neighbor California.
      https://www.americanbar.org/groups/bar_services/resources/resourcepages/unifiedbars.html

      Delete
    2. But who would pay for the bar staff, directors, and judges to vacation in Hawaii during the bar conference?

      Delete
    3. Maybe Glen Lerner?

      Delete
    4. I attended one state bar annual meeting at Squaw Valley. Nice resort, nice meeting, good CLEs, and great to get away from the heat. It was nice to hob nob with members of the Supreme Court and the Judges in a relaxed social setting. Don't know why more folks don't go to the Annual Meeting. The bar could do more with it. Never been to NJA but heard their annual conference is very good.

      Delete
  3. https://www.ralstonreports.com/blog/sands-partner-unlv-stadium-hope-bring-raiders-here

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why does this blog continue to lend credibility to the LVTribune? Serious question, maybe I am missing something.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because it tin-foil hatted news focused on the Courts!

      Delete
    2. Because it's a slow news day?

      Delete
  5. That insurance fraud story was the most disappointing things I have ever read... wow, a whole $10,000 in fraud between three people (and not even jail time to make the story more glamorous!). Don't get me wrong, insurance fraud is bad, but RJ, save your ink for something a little better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. correction, the fraud against Progressive was only $5,500.

      Delete
  6. Jail time? No one is getting jail time. ALL THREE SENTENCES WERE SUSPENDED. So AG Laxalt put out a news release announcing the recovery of $5k in investigative costs chasing after $5,500 of Progressive's money for three low-level offenders who will most likely never go to prison. Maybe Adam thinks that if he does super well handling these kinds of cases, the public will eventually trust him to handle the really important stuff, like publishing the Open Meeting Law manual or hosting a mini-series on sex trafficking.

    ReplyDelete