Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Winter Rain


  • Justice Ron D. Parraguirre assumed the post of Chief Justice of the Nevada Supreme Court yesterday. [nvcourts]
  • Metro released body cam footage of a New Year's Eve officer-involved shooting. [RJ]
  • Judge Kathleen Delaney sentenced Ammar Harris to death. [RJ]
  • Here's a handy link for you to check and see who else has filed to run for judicial office this year. 
  • What do you think about the FFZero1? [Las Vegas Sun]

17 comments:

  1. Delaney is one of the few judges I like.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Really? She is 45 minutes late to the bench daily and barely understand civil procedure.

      Delete
    2. She is better than a lot of the other judges down there. I like her better than the Johnsons

      Delete
    3. Not a bad judge, when she eventually makes it to the bench. I detest lateness. It's disrespectful

      Delete
    4. Remember that when the annual "Judge the Judges" crap list comes out.

      Delete
  2. I can't find the Supreme Court filings on the Secretary of State website. Does anyone have a direct link?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Relatively young attorney here. I have one of the most unprofessional, unpleasant opposing counsel right now, I need your advice. OC has repeatedly insulted me personally, by name, in pleadings and motions. OC makes ridiculous demands and deadlines. OC goes out of his way to be uncooperative. So far, I've responded by not responding, hoping that the judge will see through it without me acknowledging it. But the more I stick to the issues in the litigation, the more OC gets nasty and unpleasant. I want to call him out on it SO BAD but I know deep down that won't do any good. Advice? Successful strategies you've used in the past?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Name them here, publicly, loudly (preferably with links to said offending pleadings and OC's web wite) and call down the collective wrath that is LVLB or, at a minimum, Double Kickstand dude or He Who Shall Not Be Named.

      Delete
    2. Start building a record that OC is affirmatively taking steps to hinder the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of the action. NRCP 1 doesn't get cited to very often but when counsel pull these sort of stunts, it can come in handy. Judges hate attorneys that are uncivil to one another and make resolution of the matter needlessly hard. There is nothing more satisfying (and effective) than putting together a sanctions motion or fee application that incorporates a laundry list of bad behavior and tells a story of an obstreperous attorney. Even if the court doesn't award fees or sanction OC, it will build good will for you and your client with the judge.

      Delete
    3. IMO, most attorneys who are dicks to deal with are actually bad attorneys. They don't adequately prepare for court hearings or depositions because they're arrogant enough to believe they don't need to prepare. They file sloppy motions and oppositions because they spend all of their time in the office getting into discovery disputes and don't have enough time to sit down, conduct quality legal research, and write a carefully crafted brief. When they lose a hearing or a case, they simply blame it on the judge or jury being stupid rather than ask themselves what they could have done differently, learn from their mistakes, and improve their legal skills. @2:40, just remain professional at all times during your dealings with OC and know that eventually you will get the better of him or her in the case through hard work, attention to details, and producing quality work product.

      Delete
    4. 2:05 Here.

      3:09,

      Agreed. The opposite side of that is usually the very best attorneys are extremely gracious. IMO that's because they are so good that (1) they know they can win without having to strut or bully or intimidate; and (2) they know that everyone else knows they are good so there's no reason to misbehave. The attorneys' I fear most in my practice area are also generally the most professional and gracious. I would like to grow up to be one of them.

      2:51,

      You mean NRCP 11? I have two different cases arising out of the same circumstances with this OC. One of them is over and I won all of my fees. Maybe that is why OC is so mad. Unfortunately, I practice in a relatively small bar and will likely have this OC again. Which sucks.

      2:40,

      I'll admit, it would feel good for today. And that's about it. ;-) But whether it's this particular OC or not, you've all probably had this same kind of person. They're all the same.

      Delete
    5. 2:51 here. I meant NRCP 1. These rules govern the procedure in the district courts in all suits of a civil nature whether cognizable as cases at law or in equity, with the exceptions stated in Rule 81. They shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action. It's basically the "don't be a dick rule."

      Delete
  4. Part of his strategy may be trying to set you up by making it appear you are unresponsive, and thus not really doing your job on the case--which gives him an opening for screaming for sanctions and that he should be given all the relief he demands, etc. So, hiding from this does you no good. A few suggestions:

    1.Don't speak on the phone, but respond in writing, either by email or letter. Otherwise, if you speak to him over the phone or in person, you may lose your temper, which gives him more ammunition.

    2. When you respond in writing, completely ignore the personal, negative remarks he directed toward you. Only address the actual issues in the case he raised, and the extent you are willing and able, if at all, to arrive at an agreement on the terms he proposes(or in this case, the terms he demands). Likewise, any counter-offers you have on such issues should be included. But,again, don't respond to the personal attacks and disparagement.

    3. In a filing with the court, explain the situation fully, attaching as exhibits all of his correspondence, and all of your responsive correspondence. And in the filing explain and demonstrate the rude, unprofessional tenor of his demands and attacks, and emphasize, as supported by your written responsive correspondence attached as exhibits, that you refused to also engage in such behavior, but instead chose only to deal with the issues he raised. And you can also add that you took this approach because you felt it was the ethically proper and professional route, and also because you know that this particular court expects you to conduct yourself this way. And then when there is the next court hearing, you can re-emphasize to the judge the approach you are taking, and why, and that it is already supported by the filings, with exhibits, that you have provided to the court. And then, if you continue to maintain this approach, and maintain your composure, the chances are the judge will become intolerant of your adversary's approach. But far too often, when an attorney is abused like this, he/she strikes back in the same fashion, the judge becomes pissed off with both lawyers, and can't tell, and doesn't care, who the bad guy is in the whole mess.

    It is true this approach takes a lot of discipline, but if you follow it, and if you are dealing with a strong, fair, neutral judge(which we will presume you are) you will be delighted with the eventual results.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ^^^what he (or she) said, but I would be more subtle on Item 3. I was a judicial law clerk, and the exhibits suggested really do speak volumes for themselves. Unfortunately, Judges don't have much time for whiners (Really, judge, I was good!!) but the exchange of correspondence really does tell the tale, so feel to attach. I counsel all the new lawyers in my office to write their letters not only for the addressee but for a potential judge or jury.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey "blog=dead" guy, girl or other:

    Did you see all of the actual help and value posted here between 2 and 3 o'clock or were you napping?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I find it helpful to actually call out the bad behavior, but in the most professional way possible. Following an insulting email, I will respond with something along the lines of "The unmerited and unnecessary personal attacks aside, the issue at hand is X..." or even more to the point, "The personal attacks in your email are unnecessary. Turning to the issue in the case..." If the personal attack occurs in a pleading, I include a similar language. Doing so let's the court and the opposing counsel know that you're not just ignoring it or tacitly admitting it's ok, while also letting the court know you didn't engage (without actually saying, look court, I didn't do anything wrong).

    ReplyDelete