Tuesday, October 4, 2016

Pulling Guns


  • RIP retired Judge Carl Christensen. [RJ]
  • More on the investigation into the death of attorney Susan Winters. [RJ]
  • Lots of interesting stuff out of the US Supreme Court yesterday including NCAA amateurism and no trademark for the Washington Redskins. [SCOTUSblog]
  • The Eighth District Court will use a $1.4 million grant for residential treatment program. [eighthjdcourt blog]
  • If you missed it in the comments yesterday, a Motion for Protective Order and transcript describe what happened when attorney James Pengilly pulled out a gun in a deposition gone wrong.

50 comments:

  1. There were multiple commenters yesterday who said that there are two sides to a story, so we should not judge. But, I read the transcript, and I am judging. Pengilly was waaaay over the line. His conduct was inexcusable. The old adage about representing one's self and having a fool for a client seems applicable here.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are the likely outcomes for Pengilly with the State Bar, if any. The alleged conduct is probably quite unprecedented in attorney discipline.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Same story two days in a row. What's the real news here? Egotistical attorney with anger issues unable to accept accountability for his own actions because he is an attorney? Oh no! not in Las Vegas? Gun ownership and concealed carry license by an attorney that feels the need for such at a depo where he is the subject of a lawsuit? Maybe the less than average size male feels he needs to over compensate for such ?
    Let's just stop with all the honor and integrity talk about being an attorney.
    It's a shitty profession with a lot of shitty people doing shitty things for a buck!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, It's all one big hustle with very few if any redeeming qualities.
      It's why our profession is plagued with alcoholism, depression, drug abuse, divorce and self destructive choices.

      Delete
  4. 9:13? The State Bar? Are you serious? How long have you been a practicing attorney?
    Nothing is your answer ... the State Bar will do absolutely nothing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This will absolutely draw SBN attention and action, although it may not draw action quickly. If he is convicted with Assault with a Deadly Weapon in the course of lawyering, yes the SBN will act. They are drawing a line which is that they will aggressively go after people who commit acts in the course of being an attorney (as opposed to the Marisa Border cases where the act was outside of their scope as an attorney).

      Delete
    2. 9:54 ...And what would you say are the chances he is even charged with a crime, let alone get prosecuted for such, and then gets convicted? ZERO! ZILCH! and NEVER! The State Bar won't do a damn thing!
      Little Boy Pengilly just cost himself a few more bucks to settle his comments about someone else not paying their HOA dues. Pure stupidity, nothing more and it will cost him some money for it.
      Pengilly will write the check, LVMPD has no interest in investigating this nonsense, the DA has no interest in prosecuting this nonsense, and the State Bar neither has the time or institutional backbone to follow up any further. Bunch of jackasses all the way around!

      Delete
    3. Could not disagree more. This has Bar attention. This has Court attention. The deposition was a court-affiliated proceeding. Between Togliatti (the trial judge), Gonzalez (who heard the protective order) and DC Bulla (who is getting the new Motion), there is and will be Bar referrals out of this proceeding. I understand the feeling that the Bar was toothless under David Clark (not entirely accurate but understandable perception). But this one already has Bar Counsel attention.

      Delete
    4. you are hoping and wishing, 11:44

      the State Bar will end up doing nothing

      and, by the way, Pengilly is chummy with Betsy Gonzalez and has been for years

      Delete
    5. 11:44 Bar attention? Your dues have much more "Bar attention"! Togliatti,unless she has some personal issue with Pengilly has way too much on her court calendar than to deal with this garbage. Settlement with dual non disclosure takes place sooner and none of the parties involved will assist in any further actions. Quit drinking the Kool-Aid.

      Delete
    6. 11:50 and 11:51-- I am neither hoping or wishing. I like Jim personally (but 11:47 has it correct below that Jim is a decent attorney with a self-destructive side). Until the State Bar acts (and it will take some time) you will be right. But the Bar will act because this is one of those incidents that is so far beyond the pale that it will have no choice. BTW: Pengilly is not chummy with Judge Gonzalez now and was not chummy when they were both doing developer construction defect work 15 years ago.

      Delete
  5. http://abovethelaw.com/2016/10/guy-allegedly-pulls-gun-during-deposition-fwiw-youre-not-supposed-to-do-that/

    It was only a matter of time!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder assuming all the facts to be true and uncontroverted whether this even meets the misdemeanor charge of drawing or displaying a weapon.
      NRS 202.320  Drawing deadly weapon in threatening manner.
      1.  Unless a greater penalty is provided in NRS 202.287, a person having, carrying or procuring from another person any dirk, dirk-knife, sword, sword cane, pistol, gun or other deadly weapon, who, in the presence of two or more persons, draws or exhibits any of such deadly weapons in a rude, angry or threatening manner not in necessary self-defense, or who in any manner unlawfully uses that weapon in any fight or quarrel, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
      2.  A sheriff, deputy sheriff, marshal, constable or other peace officer shall not be held to answer, under the provisions of subsection 1, for drawing or exhibiting any of the weapons mentioned therein while in the lawful discharge of his or her duties.
      [1911 C&P § 174; RL § 6439; NCL § 10121]—(NRS A 1967, 486; 1989, 1240)

      Still very unsettling.

      Delete
    2. NRS 200.471  Assault: Definitions; penalties.

      1.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Assault” means:

      (1) Unlawfully attempting to use physical force against another person; or

      (2) Intentionally placing another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm.
      * * * *

      2.  A person convicted of an assault shall be punished:

      (a) If paragraph (c) or (d) does not apply to the circumstances of the crime and the assault is not made with the use of a deadly weapon or the present ability to use a deadly weapon, for a misdemeanor.

      (b) If the assault is made with the use of a deadly weapon or the present ability to use a deadly weapon, for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

      (c) If paragraph (d) does not apply to the circumstances of the crime and if the assault is committed upon an officer, a provider of health care, a school employee, a taxicab driver or a transit operator who is performing his or her duty or upon a sports official based on the performance of his or her duties at a sporting event and the person charged knew or should have known that the victim was an officer, a provider of health care, a school employee, a taxicab driver, a transit operator or a sports official, for a gross misdemeanor, unless the assault is made with the use of a deadly weapon or the present ability to use a deadly weapon, then for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

      (d) If the assault is committed upon an officer, a provider of health care, a school employee, a taxicab driver or a transit operator who is performing his or her duty or upon a sports official based on the performance of his or her duties at a sporting event by a probationer, a prisoner who is in lawful custody or confinement or a parolee, and the probationer, prisoner or parolee charged knew or should have known that the victim was an officer, a provider of health care, a school employee, a taxicab driver, a transit operator or a sports official, for a category D felony as provided in NRS 193.130, unless the assault is made with the use of a deadly weapon or the present ability to use a deadly weapon, then for a category B felony by imprisonment in the state prison for a minimum term of not less than 1 year and a maximum term of not more than 6 years, or by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by both fine and imprisonment.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 1384; A 1981, 903; 1985, 248; 1989, 1010; 1991, 124, 774; 1995, 21, 1190, 1321; 1997, 434; 1999, 140; 2001, 380, 986, 987; 2003, 354; 2005, 176; 2007, 1848, 3078; 2009, 74, 2991; 2011, 1336, 1513; 2013, 292, 952, 1763)

      Delete
    3. 11:37 AM--If it does not meet the definition of drawing a weapon or threatening how can it meet assault w/deadly weapon? No criminal charge but lots of fodder for the civil case. Not a good position to be in. This is why carrying a gun and making reference to it is so problematic.

      Delete
    4. The gun was in a holster. According to the motion, the gun left its holster. Although it was pointed downward, the argument can be made that it was drawn in a rude or angry manner. Today's lesson is:
      Be nice. Until it's time to not be nice. To determine when that time comes, please refer to the Cooler.

      Delete
    5. According to the Motion, he unholstered it and held it in a "gunfight position." Pretty sure "gunfight position" would qualify as both drawing and threatening, but remember the statute does not require drawing--just reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm. And if he chased them to the parking lot (which would not be on the deposition transcript but would be identifiable from witnesses), self defense is out the window.

      Delete
  6. Does anyone know how a suspension from the Bar works? Lets assume a 6 month suspension. Would Pengilly's associates be able to continue working and would his firm go forward as though nothing had happened other than him being gone for six months? Would he be able to earn income from his firm while suspended? I am thankful not to know the answers to any of these questions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Answers to your questions: Yes and yes. No.
      And if convicted/pled, this will be more than a 6 month suspension.

      Delete
  7. Is this 4 realz?: https://vimeo.com/66655603

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh God I just got a power boner from that video.

      Delete
    2. Yuk. They are way too old to be acting like that, especially so publically. Grow up and buy some class! And lord help those kids.

      Delete
    3. Give those kids guns.

      Delete
    4. Pengilly's first wife was way hotter. This one is kind of lumpy.

      Delete
    5. Sweet sex loft bro!

      Delete
    6. Someone needs to show her how to hold a gun.

      Delete
    7. When Jim and Amanda were not being Toddler and Tiaras parents.

      http://www.danthatscool.com/?tag=amanda-pengilly#.V_QWU2eQKUn

      Delete
    8. That video just made me all kinds of nauseous. I am curious about Pengilly's first wife though. There's no record of their divorce in Nevada that I could find.

      Delete
    9. It could have been sealed/buried even from people with passwords to Odyssey. Used to happen all the time years ago (until 5-10 years ago?), and I wouldn't be surprised if it still happens occasionally.

      Delete
    10. While the Nevada Supreme Court changed the rules on sealing cases, the rules for sealing cases in 2003 are very different than now. Family Court matters still get sealed all the time.

      Delete
    11. There is a difference between sealed (what happens now) where the contents of the file, except for orders are sealed by the existence of the case and the orders may be public, and "super-sealed" as used to be the "norm" where even the existence of the case was not disclosed.

      Delete
    12. That is 10 minutes of my life that I will never get back ...

      Although the bullet shell flipping into her cleavage was hilarious.

      Delete
    13. I'm currently working on a double secret probation case.

      Delete
    14. I....um, I don't know what to say after watching that clip. I don't know, just wrong on so many levels.

      Delete
    15. "dropping off the d.bags" - did I miss something, or is that seriously how she refers to dropping off the kids at daycare/school?

      Delete
  8. Man...now that is some dedication by Ms. Martin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone know when the next charity event by Cougars and Cuervo is?

      Delete
    2. Grand Prize next time: you get to knock up Amanda.

      And great news for Jim's ex-wife to whom he was still married until like 2001 that he was knocking the bottom out of this skank for a few years before that.

      Delete
    3. Pengilly got divorced in 2003 from his first wife, as I recall.

      Delete
  9. Pengilly is a strange dude. Comes from a well-to-do San Francisco family, he's well educated, articulate, and actually a reasonably effective attorney. But he has a yen for out-of-control trainwreck women and likes to live his personal life way out on the edge. His first wife was a hot, wild, drunken piece of ass. This one appears to be equally as crazy. I did not know until this incident about his apparent gun fetish. No clue how he got that way.

    It's not a bad life; but dragging five kids into it is a little much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God help those children.

      Delete
  10. WIZNET is down again. Weren't they going to be getting rid of this piece of shit site and get something more reasonable?

    I thought about a year ago that everything on the county/state level was going to be consolidated. What's happened with that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is why it is a good idea to videotape depositions. Had a videographer been there to record, he more than likely would not have acted that way to begin with. If he acted that way regardless of the video, well, the end result could be even worse.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The video wouldn't have necessarily picked up Pengilly as he was asking the questions. I do agree that video deposition are good though. Generally keeps people in line, but when it doesn't, the person who acted improperly faces the consequences.

      Delete
    2. Wasn't this noticed by Pengilly?

      Delete
    3. It was noticed by Pengilly at his own office.

      Delete
  12. Even though the deposition was noticed by Pengilly, opposing counsel could have arranged for a videographer. Good point about the video not picking up Pengilly, visually that is, everything said would have been.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Captain Hindsight!

      Delete
  13. The stones on that Court reporter. If someone drew a gun in a deposition I don't think I'd be sitting there typing away. Oath be dammed I'm out of there.

    ReplyDelete