Friday, February 10, 2017

Unreviewable


  • Save Red Rock's Motion to Dismiss was denied by Judge Wiese, but was still a small legal victory according to its attorney Justin Jones. [RJ]
  • The 9th Circuit panel upheld the suspension of the travel ban. [RJ]

26 comments:

  1. The controversy regarding the AG's Assistant who was granted an exemption should cause a fresh look at the 9 Exemptions for admission. The exemptions are too many. There should only be a pro hac vice (case by case basis) exemption and everyone else must take the bar exam. There is no reason with the lawyer glut in Nevada to have exemptions for legal services, rural public lawyers, law faculty, corporate counsel, and in house counsel etc.. End of story. These exceptions are patently unfair to everyone else. On top of all this, UNLV Boyd is asking the Supreme Court and the Bar Examiners to "loosen up" the grading. The grading has already been modified to make UNLV Boyd look better. Their graduates do well on the bar exam and most pass eventually.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. source for UNLV asking to loosen up the grading?

      Delete
    2. There have been official meetings with the State Bar and the Board of Bar Examiners. Several grads were complaining about failing and were told by the law school. The Supreme Court is considering a modification to the grading. The Examiners file their grading formula. Contact the Dean at UNLV. They are taking on the bar exam. The grading was modified previously and the exam given twice a year just for UNLV. UNLV's pass rate was decent, 62 per cent. The bar exam statistics used to be published. In California, the law school deans are making the same arguments about their exam and grading and it has been published. Nevada's approach is to shroud this stuff in secrecy. UNLV wants the grading lowered which would lower the passing score from the 141 MBE needed to pass to 133 to 135. Every bar failure in California will be here before you know it if they do that. The passing score on the MBE in California is 144 or 145. So Nevada is not as hard as California.

      Delete
    3. And good schools in CA regularly have 80+% of their grads pass the CA bar. So, it's the caliber of the candidate, not the toughness of the test that is the problem.

      Delete
    4. I went to Hastings in the early 2000's, for decades the bar pass rate hovered in the mid 80%, I just found out that last bar exam the pass rate for Hastings was 50%. That's not the bar exam, that's relaxed admissions standards because the tuition has gone up 500% in 16 years and its turned more into a business than a law school.

      Delete
    5. What 9:30 and 10:41 said. Worse bar passage rates over time is a reflection on admissions standards and the caliber of the applicant, not the exam.

      Delete
    6. Sorry, but I don't think any state requires law school faculty, in house counsel, or corporate counsel to be licensed members of the bar. Doing so would be ridiculous. On the professor front, it wouldn't increase jobs for Nevada licensed attorneys, it would just make it more difficult (impossible really) for Boyd to recruit faculty. As for in house and corporate counsel, its the same deal. Those local companies looking for local folks are already hiring Nevada licensed attorneys, and the corporate big boys aren't bringing in local attorneys--they are bringing their existing counsel in or recruiting with nationally experienced folks. This will just lead to these companies having their legal departments located in friendlier states. This change will have little to no impact on the hiring of local attorneys. Those folks aren't getting these jobs (not even on the radar for them in most cases) and the folks being brought in for them aren't after yours.

      Delete
    7. I'm sure that IGT and MGM will hire a bunch of ticket fixers and failing insurance defense shmoes as soon as these gaping loopholes are closed. Same with Boyd. Imagine how great the class of 2023 will be when it's taught by Nevada licensed Thomas Jefferson, BYU, Cal Western, McGeorge, and Boyd grads.

      Delete
    8. 12:09 PM--Sorry you are so wrong. Law faculty in California have to take the bar. Boyd recruited faculty before they changed the rule. Even Arizona restricts law faculty now. Nevada has gotten carried away with its exceptions to the exam. There is nothing which prohibits a national corporation having lawyers licensed elsewhere. One Boyd professor sat and actually passed the bar. The motion rule or limited license rule must go bye bye. We don't need it. We have plenty of lawyers here now. I have dealt with corporate counsels who were not admitted in Nevada for years. They were with casinos and development companies.

      Delete
    9. Why do law faculty need to be admitted to the bar anyway? They don't actually practice law. They can still write arcane law review articles that won't aid the actual practice of law and which no one will read without a bar license.

      Delete
    10. Clarification. There is no automatic admission on motion/application for law faculty in California. Want to be a member of the bar with all the rights and privileges, take the bar exam. Not the case in Nevada. They get a full license limited to their time as law faculty. Not right. If they are instructing students, they should take the test just like their students. Otherwise, it is like teaching driving without a driver's license. Law faculty don't have to take the bar in other states just to teach. They just do when they become faculty so they may practice in their state. I understand that folks don't like the bar exam because there is a risk that you can fail. This is an embarrassment to law faculty who think they are so smart and we are such idiots.

      Delete
    11. Correct. Law professors are not practicing law and do not need to be admitted unless they practice law. Unless you are in the Clinic or somewhere actually practicing, no need to pass the State Bar examination.

      Delete
    12. So why give law faculty a pass and stick a finger in the eye of every lawyer who took the bar and is paying dues. Why give anyone a pass really? Just about every professor at Boyd takes advantage of the no exam freebie. Why do they even bother? Because they are practicing law in many cases and can render that legal advice. That is why. No fair.

      Delete
    13. Law clerks don't need to be licensed, and their role (helping judges decide cases) is way more important than some Yale grad that teaches the ins and outs of the rule against perpetuities and writes abstract articles about how the rules of civil procedure could be implemented to improve the rule of law in tribal Mongolia.

      Delete
  2. In case you hadn't heard, Charles Deaner passed away last week. http://obits.reviewjournal.com/obituaries/lvrj/obituary.aspx?n=charles-deaner&pid=184090237

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never knew him, but he seems to have lived an exemplary life. Thanks for sharing.

      And no, I'm not Charles Deaner.

      Delete
  3. Why would one choose to work at Wolf Rifkin et al?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because Holland & Hart threw you under the bus after the whole discovery debacle before Gonzalez.

      Delete
    2. Fill me in plz.

      Delete
    3. He also wanted to be a Senator, and H&H wanted a partner that would practice law. Similar to Aaron Ford leaving Snell. Too bad for Justin, he was voted out the next election and is now stuck at Wolf Rifkin.

      Delete
    4. Discovery debacle...http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/crime-courts/las-vegas-sands-candor-questioned

      Delete
  4. nice spin attempt, Justin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Justin Allsop?

      Delete
    2. No, Justin Jones of Wolf Ripkin, representing Save Red Rock.

      Delete
  5. What "discovery debacle" in front of Judge Gonzales? And, how is any discovery issue in front of her NOT a debacle?

    ReplyDelete