Monday, March 13, 2017

Inalienable Right To Vote


  • A Q&A with Nevada Supreme Court Justice Michael Douglas. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • Chief Justice Michael Cherry urges reform to improve representation of indigents. [KNPR]
  • Should felons be entitled to vote? [Las Vegas Sun]
  • The CCSD spends an increasing amount of money on legal fees. Here's a look at some of the firms doing that work. [TNI]

25 comments:

  1. I thought CCSD had a whole GC office staffed with several different kinds of attorneys. Are they not capable of handling routine litigation? Or is CCSD so awful that it's constantly getting involved in major litigation?

    I suppose both things could be right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A number of those firms do not appear to be local firms (contrary to the TNI story).

      The school district retained legal assistance from 10 law firms from 2011 through 2015. All the firms provided the district with discounted government rates and attorneys who live locally to work on the cases, McDade said. Those firms include, among others, Greenberg Traurig, Kolesar & Leatham, and Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie.

      Delete
    2. The firms listed all have local offices.

      Delete
    3. At my previous job, I litigated a few cases against CCSD. Sometimes they would have outside counsel, sometimes they kept it in house. The only difference in the cases that was apparent to me was that the ones they sent out had 1983 claims.

      Delete
  2. Here is an interesting scenario: there is currently an Associate Attorney position open at Office of Bar Counsel and at Law Offices of Karen Ross. Presuming all pay/benefits/hours worked are equal, who would you rather work for? I am interested to reading the answers...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I simply could not resist a graduate of "Chaminade University of Honolulu" if I were in the market...

      Delete
    2. obc would be a hell no

      Delete
    3. I would work in the Karen Ross office just for the chance of someday getting a peak. MMMMM MMMMMM!

      Delete
    4. did you mean a peek?

      Delete
    5. Maybe we would be working late, having a cocktail and get a peek at that beautiful body.

      Delete
    6. @3:42p - What, do you think she has one of those devices to practice being an ecdysiast in her office? No way.....

      Delete
    7. Who you ecdysiasts?

      Delete
    8. I would rather work for OBC than Akerman

      Delete
    9. Not a chance. Akerman is a grindhouse but a relatively well-paid autonomous grindhouse. OBC is presently a shitshow, like an Internal Affairs division run amok. Asst. Bar Counsel having to go to people and tell them that the deals which they agreed to have been vetoed by Stan without any justification.

      Delete
    10. Karen Ross just had her third kid, from her third baby daddy...at the age of 40. Her body ain't what it used to be y'all. But good luck with that peek!

      Delete
    11. 9:11, gross, go stalk obc.

      Delete
    12. Go to work for Karen. Then you, too, can listen to her scream at opposing counsel about how they aren't being professional when her demand for the 4th extension on basic discovery is being declined because opposing counsel would like to retain an expert, prepare a report, and you know, ACTUALLY LITIGATE THE CASE.

      Delete
    13. Wow 3:38-- you really HAVE had cases with Karen.

      Delete
  3. Interesting that some people are complaining that OBC is finally doing the job that they should have done for the last 20+ years. It is the responsibility of OBC to protect the public from the misconduct of attorneys, not to protect the attorneys from the consequences of their misconduct.

    A license to practice law is a right to earn a living while serving the client.. not a license to steal from the client and the public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thx for PSA, OBC... Now who's into OPP?

      Delete
    2. Yeah, you know me, who is down with opp???

      Delete
    3. Actually we are complaining about the OBC not doing its job. About the OBC taking so long bringing Complaints and refusing to have hearings that suspensions end up being over before the OBC has even brought it to the NSC. About the OBC having absolutely no standards in how they prosecute cases-- where a public reprimand for one person is a 24 month suspension (same facts, same aggravating and mitigating factors). Many of these cases have nothing to do with theft of client funds. Worst of all, OBC has become entirely untrustworthy in any form of cooperation with the State Bar. As someone who handles Bar matters, OBC has now a nightmare. I concur with 3:08-- your comment can only be explained as coming from OBC. Janeen and Phil, is that you?

      Delete