Monday, October 24, 2016

Pro Bono


A slow news weekend in Las Vegas law means it's a good time to talk about pro bono work. How many of you actually do it? Do you enjoy it? Does no good deed go unpunished? Should pro bono work be mandatory?

Here are a few links if you're looking to get started:
And, as always, feel free to discuss whatever else is going on out there.

78 comments:

  1. Way to go LVRJ for being the only "major" paper (actually controlled by a huge political contributor) for endorsing a vile, fascist, hate monger who is hell bent on getting into the White House and if he can't- bent tearing the fabric of the system apart. Sad day in journalism. Sad day for Nevada.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well thought out and reasoned comments. You are clearly a rational and unbiased person. Or maybe not.

      Delete
    2. I gotta go with @10:03 on this one. There's no way that the pre-Adelson LVRJ endorses either of these candidates. Gary Johnson would have been their fallback even though there's plenty they don't like about him, either. They also flipped on Question 2 after a long history of supporting decriminalization. They may as well rename it the Adelson-Sandes Daily Dispatch.

      Delete
  2. The writers of the RJ should be ashamed of themselves for staying there as long as they have since Adelson bought the paper. If they continue to work there, they will forever wear this stink.

    Dear Las Vegas Sun, please stop being a terrible source of news so I can stop reading the RJ.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Voted none of these candidates for Hardesty. OBC is getting out of control, and he is behind it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ditto here. Hardesty needs to be stopped.

      Delete
    2. office of bat shit crazy

      Delete
    3. my apologies, batshit should be one word

      Delete
  4. The problem is that 90% of the "news" outlets in this town lift their information from the RJ.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Can we start a Lawyer Asshole thread??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We should start with who isn't an asshole lawyer thread? So few, so rare, should be treasured.

      Delete
    2. If you brandish a gun in front of an opposing party and his client during a deposition, you belong on the list. Not accusing anyone of anything.

      Delete
    3. I will name a few assholes, and they are all ironically insurance defense cronies: Eric Daly, Justin Smerber, Tamela Kahle, Randall Tindall, and Steven Jaffe. I know Satan is holding a special place for all these people

      Delete
    4. Are there any decent insurance defense attorneys? Like people with whom working is actually enjoyable? After 10 years of personal injury practice I have yet to find any.

      Delete
    5. Rhonda Long is nasty.

      Delete
    6. 11:39 here, and yes there are. They are few and far between however. I have had good experience with Cassandra Cummings of Messner Reeves, and Ashley Balducci isn't too bad either at Carrol Kelley Trotter.

      Delete
    7. I like smerber. Tindall is a scumbag. He should have his own place at the top.

      Delete
    8. Keating is pleasant to deal with.

      Delete
    9. I agree that Tindall is in a (low) class all by himself.

      Delete
  6. Reluctantly voted for Kihuen. Only reason did not vote for independent was Crescent "Roll" Hardy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is the left's outrage over this body-shaming comment... crickets, because the victim is a republican.

      Delete
    2. Kihuen sucks, but he is better than Crescent Hardy. Wait, are Joe Hardy and Crescent Hardy related?

      Delete
    3. @ 2:16 PM, no they are not related.

      Delete
  7. If you want to name names on the asshole thread you should at least have the backbone to sign your own name to your comment....otherwise I think you might be the asshole. And a wimp.

    As far as pro bono goes...I find it to be a case of no good deed going unpunished. In my experience LACSN does not screen their cases well enough. I've gotten some awful clients out of there. I find I do better taking cases where I know the client can only pay a little bit and I'm going to write off most of my bill. When they are actually paying you something every month they are more respectful of your time and effort.

    Mandatory pro bono is BS and probably unconstitutional. What other profession is "required" to work for free?

    ReplyDelete
  8. 11:52, spoken like a true asshole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Could care less about your opinion.

      Delete
    2. Where is your name Mr. phony self righteous @11:52?

      Delete
    3. @1:44 PM: Talk a big game, however, I do not see you listing your name asshole!

      Delete
    4. 3:15, is the voldemort of the legal blog. get a weekend pass, buddy.

      Delete
    5. 1:44 HERE. I am not calling people out for not disclosing their name. I am merely pointing out your hypocrisy. It is an anonymous blog and you disclose you maturity range calling me an asshole. You would never do that in person. My initials are JLD.

      Delete
    6. 3:42, yes, we would.

      Delete
    7. Unless you are Marchese.

      Delete
  9. What is unconstitutional is the OBC and Hardesty, not a pretty picture. Something stinks to Holland.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So name who at the Office of Bar Counsel has screwed you over? Obviously Hunterton is pulling the strings (or being the bad cop in this bad cop/mediocre cop act) down there, But call out the deputies by name who are spineless weasels.

      Delete
    2. Deputies, that is funny. No can do. Just watch who you deal with over there. All I am gonna say. Document, document.

      Delete
    3. Documenting does nothing for you. Janeen Isaacson is tough but fair. Brian Kunzi would have been fair had he not been run over like a truck and now he is in Admissions. Kait Flocchini up north is fair but only because she is not dealing with Stan face to face. The rest could not care less about their jobs and will do whatever Stan makes them do. If OBC was a law firm, they would be known as the dirtiest firm in the State.

      Delete
    4. 12:36, so true.

      Delete
  10. OBC, Hardesty....BOGs...let's kick it...

    ReplyDelete
  11. I voted for Eric Johnson, because he looked good on a bus terminal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wiped my ass with an Eric Johnson campaign advertisement.

      Delete
    2. It doesn't take many billable hours to afford Charmin!

      Delete
    3. Hey 12:25... Was that you on the front steps of the RJC this morning?

      Delete
    4. 2:34, no. That was Mark Manendo in front of RJC in the morning, carrying on his support for you, 2:37.

      Delete
    5. Mark Manendo is an asshole.

      Delete
  12. No mention of Century Surety Company v. Dennis Prince and George Ranalli? Case No. 2:16-cv-02465.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Details so we can all comment.

      Delete
    2. Here's the complaint. Insurance Co. is suing Prince and Ranalli for fraud in setting up $18M bad faith claim.

      https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16060807/Century%20Surety%20v.%20Prince.pdf

      Delete
    3. This is bullshit. Does res judicata apply. State court and federal,case has been litigated extensively. Add Marty kravitz to the list with Tindall as number one scumbag.

      Delete
    4. If the complaint has any truth to it, Ranalli seems like the one who may have some problems.

      Delete
    5. Have not read the complaint yet, but if you are representing an insured, then that is where your primary duty lies. If the insurer is exposing its insured to an excess verdict and ignoring a demand to settle within limits, then throwing them under the bus is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is your duty to do so if necessary to protect your client.

      Delete
    6. Only a matter of time since Dennis joined up with Eglet, after saving the insurance carriers millions as ID counsel/partner @ Prince & Keating, that the "insurance powers that be" go after Dennis as an indirect way to go after Bob & Tracy. Dennis has been "whooping some serious ass" as strictly Plaintiff's counsel at E & P since he moved into to his digs at the palace last year. Claiming RICO statutes and alleging collusion are some serious allegations though. Agree with 4:39, Prince has no obligation to notice Century. George however, has some issues to deal with particularly regarding how these claims in this suit affect his current billing ID empire and how his other insurance defense panel designations are impacted. My guess is that it's going to cause Ranalli & Zaniel some of those carriers to look elsewhere for their defense needs. Larger question is does the US Attys office probe into it further now that the whole prior "medical mafia" federal inquiry vs. Eglet went nowhere. I believe that collusion regularly occurs between ID and PI attorneys to benefit both of their separate interests without regard for the insurance carrier or the injured plaintiff.
      What about all the current cases where Prince is plaintiff's counsel and Ranalli is ID ? Does this filed suit now create a conflict for those cases? Re:A-15-713356-C and others I find this dirty laundry much more relevant than an alleged "gun
      brandishing"@ a civil depo involving a fringe element defendant attorney.

      Delete
    7. George has had issues with co-mingling firm funds in the past. Not surprised.

      Delete
    8. This is the insurance industry once more going after someone who regularly kicks their asses. Nothing more.

      Delete
    9. Read complaint. Looks bad for Ranalli. Prince is just superior attorney.

      Delete
    10. $18 million default? Damn.

      Delete
    11. They won't get anything on Dennis! Ploy to get reduced settlement

      Delete
    12. Didn't George used to work for Dennis as ID counsel? Smells real bad

      Delete
    13. Anyone who knows insurance and bad faith knows this is how it works. Sorry insurance company, you screwed up. Chances are they knew about the suit and failed to intervene. Despite what I'm sure was adequate opportunity to do so. In an effort to protect his client against excess judgment, George agreed to allow default to be entered in exchange for payment of his client's policy limits and a covenant not to execute. He protected his client. It's not George's job in this situation to protect Century, it's Century's job to protect Century. By retaining counsel and intervening. This happens all the time. This isn't a sign of collusion it's just how it works. Assuming everything was kosher, which it sounds like it was, Dennis did nothing wrong here. The insurer is the only one to blame. They'd be better served by trying to set aside the default or attack the amount itself, not by attacking the attorneys who were just doing their jobs.

      Delete
    14. 8:25,

      Does protecting your client also include aiding your client in lying to the Court?

      Delete
    15. OK, now I've read it (quickly). What is unclear to me is whether Century was on notice of the lawsuit and the contention that the driver was in the course and scope, yet failed to intervene in the case and/or file an action for declaratory relief. If they were on notice, then they are screwed. I disagree with the contention that Ranalli is in any real jeopardy here. He made sure that the Progressive insured was protected against personal exposure and that the company was not exposed to extra-contractual liability. What happens after that is none of his concern.

      Delete
    16. And further to that, I think this case is a fool's errand. They need to attack the underlying judgment

      Delete
    17. To 9:11....8:25 here. How did his client lie to the Court? Regarding the extension? They had one....that doesn't have any impact on Century's duty to intervene. Regarding being in the course and scope of employment? Perhaps I missed it, but I don't see where Ranalli's client makes that claim, only Dennis. I'd make that claim in the Complaint and default proceedings too if I'm Dennis...potentially triggers more coverage. It's Century's duty to prove that's inaccurate. Had they intervened they would have had an opportunity to do so.

      Delete
  13. I believe this Fed suit does create a conflict for suits currently represented by Prince as plaintiff's counsel and where Ranalli is retained to provide defense. Any other opinions on the subject?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Expect a flood of intervenors to come rushing in to fill the gap where trust between ID counsel used to be.

      Delete
  14. Agree with 8:01! Dennis is a f-ing beast that should just be hand fed caviar by the insurance industry!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Shouldn't you be off somewhere slobbering over Bob Eglet's knob?

      Delete
  15. $12MM default judgment + $5MM attorney fee award, that alone reeks of collusion between Plaintiff, the named Defendants, and the court.

    And, what the heck is up with Judges these days. Attorney fees may only be awarded if there is a rule, contract, or statute allowing for same. And, the contract between the injured party and his attorney agreeing to pay 40% of any recovery is not the "contract" mentioned above.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's bad faith. It's breach of contract. It's an insurance contract. Attorney fees can be awarded.

      My suspicion is that most people commenting that its collusion have absolutely no experience handling first party bad faith cases.

      Delete
    2. Attorney's fees can be awarded in a bad faith case. There is a Nevada case that at least arguably stands for that idea, and also there is some Ninth Circuit authority as well, which is where these cases ordinarily wind up after removal. Not clear-cut, as I recall, but authority is there. Also, for those who do not regularly practice in this area, it would be worthwhile to review the Nevada Supreme Court decisions in Pietrosh 454 p.2d 106, Merit Insurance, 853 P.2d 1266, and Lomastro, 195 P.d 1339. There may be others but those are some of the main ones dealing with intervention and what can happen when the insurer sits on it hands. With respect to this case, there is a lengthy unreported opinion by Judge Gordon that I haven't had time to read but that most likely addresses all of these cases and others. Haven't read it yet but it looks to me like the damages were limited to breach of duty to defend and capped at $1 million, unless that decision was revisited or reversed later, which I don't know because I need to get back to doing real work now.

      Delete
    3. The damages were capped... until Judge Gordon reversed himself and decided they weren't. The argument he used was that while the duty to indemnify might have been capped at the policy limits, the duty to defend is separate (which it is), and that breach of the duty to defend exposes the insurer to consequential damages. Like a $12 million default. (lolwut?)

      Delete
    4. HERE is a recent Pietrosh post on Mike Mills' Nevada Insurance Law blog: http://nevadainsurancelaw.com/umuim-provider-bound-judgment-tortfeasor/#more-1368

      Delete
    5. "...the insurance company was aware of the litigation brought by its insured and simply sat back on its haunches doing nothing."

      Haunches! I love finding new words.

      haunch
      hôn(t)SH,hän(t)SH/
      noun
      plural noun: haunches
      1.
      a buttock and thigh considered together, in a human or animal.

      Delete