Thursday, March 9, 2017

Guardians Of Doom


  • Harvard Law will no longer require the LSAT, giving applicants the opportunity to use GRE scores instead. [Washington Post]
  • At a budget hearing for the AG's office yesterday, the Legislature asked about Laxalt's absence from the hearing and the seven attorneys who work in the office, but have not passed the Nevada bar. [RJ]
  • Laxalt wasn't at that hearing because he was indispensable to the photo-op grand jury indicting April Parks on over 200 charges related to her services as a guardian.  Also charged was her former attorney,  Noel Palmer Simpson. [RJ]

74 comments:

  1. Law schools are desperate to keep what they see as their share government-guaranteed student loan money rolling in. Easing entry requirements is just their not-so-secret way of trying to boost applications. It's not good for the legal profession; but it will keep the tenured do-nothings comfortable in their ivory towers for at least another decade. Meanwhile, we'll continued to see less-qualified lawyers, law school graduates, and law school dropouts saddled with increasing debt loads backed buy taxpayers. It is truly sickening.

    70 or 80 of the so-called ABA schools should close. And the federal government should get the f*ck out of the student loan business and leave it up to more qualified people, like, say, bankers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think it's Harvard's way of letting in more people without watering down its LSAT number. I know lots of schools that do this. Georgetown allows their top undergrad students to go to law school without taking the LSAT. It allows Georgetown to raise their median GPA without the risk that the guy that got straight As in undergrad basket weaving will bring down their LSAT stats.

      Delete
    2. Not necessarily defending student loan program, but I certainly hope you were being sarcastic when you stated "leave it up to more qualified people, like, say, bankers" cuz we all know what an awesome job they did in the lead up and aftermath of the mortgage crisis.

      Delete
    3. 8:45 You are an idiot. Mortgage crisis was caused by greedy irresponsible morons who wanted to buy homes that they couldn't afford. They lied on applications in order to get mortgages they could never pay back. Each and every one of them signed off on the loans documents and saw exactly what their monthly payments would be. The banks didn't trick them into anything. So tired of the "predatory lending shit". How this rule? Don't buy what you can't afford. Personal responsibility.

      Delete
    4. How this rule?

      WHO YOU PEOPLE?

      Delete
    5. Who You People is funny every time.

      Delete
    6. In the old days higher education admins were looking to discover and cultivate talent. Now it's about increasing revenue and hawking PC crap.

      Delete
    7. If a banker were to loan a college graduate with a 2.25 GPA and a 140 LSAT score $200,000 to get a law degree at Thomas Jefferson Law Academy, that banker would be fired for incompetence. That would be the definition of a loan that will never be paid back.

      But the United States government encourages such lending practices. Think about it.

      Delete
    8. 10:44 has it right - feathering of the faculty nest

      Delete
    9. Hey, 8:45, ever seen the movie "The Big Short?" You should.

      Delete
    10. The banks were in it up to their eyeballs. So says Judge Posner in one of his typically entertaining opinions: http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2017/D02-10/C:16-1384:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1911454:S:0

      Delete
    11. 8:45 here. Yes 11:04, I have seen the Big Short. As to 9:06, if you truly believe that it was only greedy borrowers who created the mortgage crisis, then you need to see the Big Short. Banks were the greedy f*&%s who profited from and fanned the flames of the mortgage crisis, encouraging people to take out loans they never would be able to pay back. Does that absolve the borrowers? Hell no, but is sure as heck doesn't absolve the Banks.

      Delete
    12. something tells me 9:06 voted for McCain and definitely voted for Trump lol

      Delete
    13. 9:06 is a snowflake conservative.

      Delete
    14. 9:06 is an Akerman asshole.

      Delete
    15. 9:06 works for the OBC

      Delete
    16. How many illegal foreclosures did Akerman and McCarthy Holthus assist their crooked clients to accomplish and cover up. These attorneys and their clients should be in jail.

      Delete
    17. Akerman didn't help their clients with any foreclosures. They do represent banks today. Cooper Castle? Miles Bauer? Sure they were assisting with foreclosures. I mean-- I think Akerman is a sweatshop mill of bad lawyering. But no, Akerman was not doing foreclosures.

      Delete
    18. Illegal foreclosures? Try Alessi & Koenig and Leach Johnson Song & Gruchow, just to name a few.

      Delete
  2. A bunch of Democrats hold a hearing and say critical things about a Republican. News at 11. It reminds me of the dog and pony show that Chaffetz and Issa (I'm sure I spelled those wrong) every time they could put a Democrat in their crosshairs. Politics and politicians are the worst. All any of them are worried about is gotcha sound bites and photo opportunities.

    Rant finished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The appropriate response to criticisms / investigation by a legislative body into attorneys who may or may not be practicing law without a license or under a valid exemption: "I'm sorry, I'm going to have to refer that line of questions to the fucking Nevada Supreme Court, who is the entity tasked with governing the legal profession in this state, and not some cotton candy-ass legislative committee."

      Delete
    2. Legislative oversight of the executive branch isn't an appropriate role of the legislature? So much for co-equal branches of government and separation of powers, I guess.

      Delete
    3. 8:37! as if being an attorney is such an honorable choice in f**king over people? Wait... aren't the overwhelming numbers of politicians juris doctorate shitbags? There's a reason why you are so unfulfilled and miserable! You're a lawyer! If being a lawyer was such a great way to live life, being an elitist douche bag with the whole ESQ. beyond your last name, I wouldn't be fucking your wife at lunch with my 9" cock!
      What are all you pussy's going to do when the shit breaks out?

      Delete
    4. Hey Admin....
      Please remove the 1:53 post. It is both offensive and tasteless and does not belong here.

      Delete
    5. Hey 2:15 ....
      They might be speaking the truth?

      Delete
    6. 1:53 is an internet tough guy. Take your rage out over at Breitbart.com buddy. I love being a lawyer, and while I am happily married, I have found that it is mostly lawyers who are banging other people's wives during lunch. But enjoy your huge penis and your awesomeness, I'm going to go back to helping people out and then I'm going to count all my money.

      Delete
    7. I just remembered that I'm 8:37. I'm oddly not annoyed at all by 1:53's rant. Good internet ranting bro! Keep up the good work! Tell my wife I said hi and that I'm sticking her with the old BMW i8 again if she buys another god damn thing at Bloomingdales.

      Delete
    8. 1:53, judging by the percentage of lawyers in Congress, no. https://twitter.com/JusticeWillett/status/839279937173479425

      And 9 inches? You're confusing inches and centimeters again, aren't you?

      Delete
  3. The GRE is a demanding exam and a high score on all three portions suggests arduous preparation and high aptitude.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I found the GRE to be much more difficult than the LSAT.

      Delete
    2. Respectfully disagree - I earned a joint JD/MA degree, and if you have any aptitude with language the GRE is much easier in my opinion.

      Delete
    3. Bar or CPA exam harder?

      MCAT/DAT or LSAT?

      Delete
    4. 10:05... Why would you take the GRE before getting an MBA? Are you sure you're not thinking of the GMAT, which was an absolute cakewalk?

      Delete
    5. 10:05: How about the math portion?

      Delete
    6. 10:05 here, agreed you also have to be reasonably conversant in college level math. I just thought LSAT's logical and analytical reasoning sections were more difficult than the whole of the GRE.

      Delete
    7. Shit, 10:34 here. I didn't process that someone would actually get a JD/MA degree. Never heard of that before. Good on you.

      I have no personal knowledge of the GRE. It seems weird that a "General" test could be substituted for a "Legal" test, but they're all a crapshoot anyway.

      Delete
  4. Best advice I've ever received as an attorney: "if anyone has to go to jail, make sure it's your client."

    I wonder if the charges will stick. If they don't, does the state bar still have a go of their own?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Job opening at the OBC.... anyone interested?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you kidding?

      Delete
    2. Come be part of the shitshow

      Delete
    3. Where is it located? North or south?

      Delete
  6. Does anyone know what is going on at the Las Vegas office of Wood Smith Henning & Berman? Their Vegas office appears to have gotten rid of at least three associates. I don't think they quit. Any ideas?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why don't you think they quit?

      Delete
    2. I would put a lot of money on them having quit.

      Delete
    3. They got tired of working under the thumb of WSH&B. So now they're going to be starting their own CD firm. With blackjack! And hookers!

      Delete
    4. That firm has more turnover than a car tire.

      They had a great group of guys there several years ago, but they've all moved on to greener pastures.

      Delete
    5. I pray to Baby Jesus that they completed all their lot files before leaving. Otherwise, I'm fucked.

      Delete
    6. I heard all those guys had giant dicks that wouldn't fit through the narrow office doors. Except for the ugly bald one of course. Tiny dick.

      Delete
    7. Word on the street is that WSHB lost their lot file expert a few years back. The firm is still recovering.

      Delete
    8. What's a "lot file"?

      Delete
    9. I actually was under the impression that working at WSH&B wasn't bad. CD defense work might be "soul crushing", but I thought the environment at WSH&B was fine. Am I wrong?

      Delete
    10. It was a great place to work a few years back. Once the lot file expert quit, it was never the same. Sad stuff.

      Delete
  7. Talk of the LSAT brings us to the real topic. Law School Hot?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No such thing. Law school and hot are oxymorons. Just like lawyer and hot are.

      Delete
  8. Word on the street is that WSHB lost their lot file expert a few years back. The firm is still recovering.

    ReplyDelete
  9. What's going on with these guardianship indictments? Estate planning, tax, guardianship attorney (not named Rob Graham this time) indicted: http://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/grand-jury-indicts-nevada-guardian-more-200-charges

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Something that many of us have been anticipating for a least 3 or 4 years.

      And there will be more indictments coming.

      Delete
  10. The Graham Bar Hearing occurred. For those of you worried where Jeff German has gone (and those hoping for an Indiana cornfield)

    http://www.reviewjournal.com/local/las-vegas/state-bar-nevada-wants-disbar-lawyer-charged-stealing-millions-clients

    ReplyDelete
  11. Super clever posts, former WSH&B attorneys. lolololz so clever

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Found the Wilson Elser associate!

      Delete
  12. Recently concluded I would rather slit my wrists than bill another .1 defending insurance companies. My problem is that it's been so long since I woke up excited to go to work, that I don't recall what (if any) areas of law get me excited. Any suggestions on how to re-discover the joy in doing this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I work at a mega firm where we bill a billion dollars an hour to represent huge companies. I love when, for some reason, I get to represent an individual client that really fucking cares about the case. Especially when it's a plaintiff side case. And especially when I think the other side is a worthless pile of shit. We had a client like that that never should have come to our firm -- the economics just didn't make sense. And I knew he wasn't paying his bill and that he never would. And I knew the other side would never pay a judgment because you can't get blood from a stone. I still worked that dude's case for pushing 2 years without payment. I endured shitty messages from firm accountants and office managers about how we had to get the dude to pay or cut and run. I still pressed on because it was the only case that I loved working on. If I was pushed out I'd either go somewhere where I could prosecute fraudsters and have regular contact with fraud victims. Or I'd try to find a plaintiff's lawyer that has integrity and that I would like to work with day in and day out and join up.

      Delete
    2. Let me offer the other side of that equation however. We represented a nice older client. They put up their life savings into the subject of this lawsuit. They were absolutely right, the kind of contract case where it clearly was fraud. They went to arbitration, where the Arbitrator ruled against them (only to later have been found to have been soliciting work from Defendants' counsel during the arbitration). The result was so soul crushing that Plaintiff's attorney quit the practice of law. Representing individual fraud victims is similar to representing terminal cancer patients; you think it will be empowering and that you will do good for the world when in reality you hopelessly come to see how powerless and futile law can be on many occasions. We have lost a number of associates who have said that they need to work for corporate clients because the pressure of knowing that you have real people who will lose their life savings is too much.

      Delete
    3. So, basically, the options are to get ground down slowly working for groups that have a leg up in litigation, where every day you die a little more inside, or to get ground down slowly doing rewarding work with far too few wins because the deck is stacked against your client. So even when you win, you know that tomorrow is another loss. Is that about right?

      Delete
    4. Not exactly. Representing corporate clients isn't soul crushing when they are in the right and filing suit enforces their rights they've been deprived of. May not be as sympathetic a plaintiff as an old lady with a broken hip, but it's not soul crushing like depriving that old lady of a settlement.

      Delete
    5. Agreed. And being able to go to trial and if you lose, you know its a blip on your client's balance sheet. Go have to explain to an elderly couple that their life savings is gone despite all of your best efforts, and them being right, because sometimes that is just how the ball bounces. Representing real people and holding their lives in your hand is tough. Having a client commit suicide because of the result of a case will sober you up quickly (or drive you to drink). Insurance defense lawyers don't have that issue.

      Delete
  13. Pro bono - but be selective on the cases you pick. Just like the regular practice of law, there are a lot of bad pro bono cases out there with clients who are crazy and/or shady.

    But, if you find a case you believe in, you can usually get your firm to support you because it looks good on their resume as "giving back." And, you don't have to worry about your client losing their life savings because they aren't paying you anyway.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Legal Aid should be more selective in the civil cases they pawn off on unsuspecting attorneys. The intake procedures is abysmal at getting to the facts. Legal Aid gives you a case about a poor tenant getting screwed by their a landlord, but it turns into a unauthorized subtenant of another unauthorized subtenant's brother, with that subtenant having already left Nevada with the cash, and now, the landlord who is innocent in this entire matter just wants to move in a tenant to pay the mortgage so he won't lose the house... But my client (the subtenant of the subtenant's brother) can't pay market rent which is why he was renting from the unauthorized subtenant in the first place and getting an unbelievably sweet deal in the first place.

      Delete
  14. I'm late to the party on this thread, but clearly the blog is dead.

    ReplyDelete
  15. FUCK LSAC. Any alternative to destroy those bastards is AWESOME!! U of A in Tucson had already done this but HARVARD. YEA

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. U of A did it so they could pad their coffers with foreign students money w/o diminishing incoming class scores

      Delete