Wednesday, April 26, 2017

Job Tips: Administrative Professionals' Day

Here's a tip: today is Administrative Professionals' Day and it's not too late to do something special for the administrative professionals in your life.  Even if you can't get something done today, you have until Friday to make it right when the week long observance of this special time of year comes to an end.

What do you do to celebrate?  Lunch? Gifts? Money? Time off?  Do you do something for everyone or just the ones you work with? Any other tips?

Thank you to all the administrative professionals who help make this blog possible (you know who you are)!

33 comments:

  1. One male attorney brought one woman flowers. One non attorney male brought the entire office baked goods. Delicious! The female attorneys brought de nada. Hmmmm.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Speaking of "administrative professionals", any opinions on the Discovery Commissioner's staff that loves to reject DCRR's, Stipulations, and OST Motions as deficient? Are they doing their job and doing it well or looking for reasons to fill out a green slip?

    ReplyDelete
  3. She brought "you're welcome" (which is what de nada translates too)? That's kinda weird.

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://www.theonion.com/article/university-nevada-renames-vito-corleone-school-bus-55852

    ReplyDelete
  5. In responding to 10:23, if the Discovery Commissioner's office wishes to adopt a restrictive stance as to OST requests, and DCRRs, I understand that and everyone just has to kind of live with it and adjust accordingly.

    However, as to stipulations, if both sides are represented by counsel, and a stipulation is arrived at, it should rarely be rejected. Finding some innocuous, hyper-technical non-compliance with something or other as a reason to reject a stipulation is highly counterproductive.

    Commissioners should show some real leadership, as well as some level of responsiveness to the Bar, and instruct staff to accept stipulations unless some area of noncompliance actually creates the possibility of some real problem or some real prejudice to a party or to the administration of the case. But to reject a stipulation based on some largely meaningless deficiency does in fact suggest some leadership deficiencies, lack of responsiveness to the Bar and the litigant's desire to resolve matters, and a glaring failure to see the big picture.

    The best judges, hearing masters and commissioners, will tell you that to perform their position effectively, they must facilitate settlement, and never stand in the way of resolving issues simply because the paperwork includes some harmless defect.

    That all said, the other side of it is that skilled attorneys should learn, study the check lists or whatever, and make certain their stipulations won't get kicked back for these deficiencies. Presumably, the Commissioner's office will provide such list of requirements upon request.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are presuming a heck of a lot there in the last sentence. Her staff are some of the most unhelpful people in the entire courthouse, and sometimnes you will get a rejection based on something like "doesn't comply with the minutes" when in fact you followed the minutes exactly. The entire operation is the definition of "arbitrary and capricious" although Bonnie herself is very reasonable with most of her decisions IMHO.

      Delete
    2. Bonnie is nuts.

      Delete
    3. My problem, and I saw someone else mention this same exact problem, is that sometimes there literally is no "right answer" for the staff with the Discovery Commissioner's Office.

      On several occasions, I have had "problems" with submitted documents. These "problems" unfortunately are one or two very minor wording or formatting errors and are of very little (or no) substantive context.

      Then, when these "problems" are resolved and sent back, a NEW "problem" develops. Yes, that's right. A new problem, which COULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED the first time a "problem" developed. I'm sorry, DISCOVERY COMMISSER STAFF (who shall go unnamed, but everyone knows how I'm talking about), this attitude is clear manipulation and an obvious attempt to make things difficult for attorneys and their offices.

      And if you try to argue with this person, all they give you is an example of their passive aggressive attitude, which is at a very high level. This person can simply not be reasoned with, and frankly, is not managed properly at all.

      Delete
  6. 12:04 here again. Perhaps I was presuming too much to expect they would be helpful and have a list that could be followed so that submissions are in compliance.

    As to the issue of rejecting matters which are not in compliance with the minutes(when in fact they are in complete compliance with minutes, as well as the issue of rejecting stipulations based on harmless defects,perhaps it would be productive to take these complaints further.

    For example, does the Commissioner necessarily know that this approach by staff is broad based? Has anyone brought it to her attention, or is there a feeling no action would be taken even it were brought to her attention?

    Could these list of grievances perhaps be vetted at a Civil Bench Bar Meeting. Could that be productive, or is there a sense the judges are hesitant to interfere in the internal, administrative operations of the Commissioner's Office?

    Obviously, I don't know any of these answers, so I am just posing a few questions. Hopefully, others will weigh in if they have any suggestions as to how to rectify the problems, or at least reduce the degree to which such problems persist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let us also recall that the "minutes" mean jack. They are the notation of a non-judge, non-attorney. The are almost always incomplete and frequently inaccurate.

      "The district court's oral pronouncement from the bench, the clerk's minute order, and even an unfiled written order are ineffective for any purpose and cannot be appealed." Rust v. Clark Cty. School District, 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987)

      I tire of lawyers who insist on using verbatim language from minute orders, or who rely on minute orders as exhibits in subsequent pleadings. Minute orders mean nothing. They have no weight, no authority and have no legal significance.

      Delete
    2. Yes except they mean quite a bit to the law clerks who are looking over your proposed Order and then sending them back repeatedly to you, only for you to file a Motion for Clarification with the Court and the Court to go "Well I looked at the Minutes and do not see what you are referring to Counsel." The Minutes should mean nothing. But if you think that they practically mean nothing, you either aren't paying attention or don't practice in Clark County.

      Delete
    3. 12:04/2:37-- Bonnie attends the Judges Meetings and Bench/Bar. Go talk to her about it there in front of the other judges. Wear a helmet.

      Delete
  7. Any updates on the PI trial in front of Johnson? P's counsel asked for 240 mil.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. which johnson and whose case?

      Delete
    2. Looks like a case against the Cosmo. Plaintiff is Paul Padda and Defense is Josh Aicklen. Maybe a negligent security case. 240 mil is a lot of cheddar.

      Delete
    3. Offensive amounts that a jury is likely to turn off at.

      Delete
    4. Verdict is $160 million

      Delete
    5. Does anyone have a case number or additional details on this case?

      Delete
    6. I think the Plaintiff was an investment banker or something like that.

      Delete
    7. Plaintiff attorney the mighty money machine Brian Panish from LA?

      Delete
    8. Had to do some digging but found the case: Case No. A-14-698824-C
      David Moradi, Plaintiff(s) vs. Nevada Property 1 LLC, Defendant(s)

      Delete
    9. Anyone know facts behind? I'd bet on negligent security case mentioned above. Had a buddy visiting from out of town get bumrushed from behind in Marquee, security didn't rush to break it up, but did take the opportunity to get a few cheap shots in

      Delete
    10. Rich hedge fund manager gets beat up by marquee security. Traumatic brain injury. Can no longer manage money. Plaintiff's counsel was Rahul Ravipudi from Brian Panish's office. Defense was Weinberg wheeler & Lewis Bris.

      Delete
    11. and don't forget Marty Kravitz on the defense. Warm, likeable, good-humored Marty Kravitz.

      Delete
    12. Apparently night club bouncers were physically aggressive with a patron.

      Delete
  8. Steve Jones is out of jail. https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/ex-judge-steven-jones-completes-prison-time-in-las-vegas-fraud-case/

    ReplyDelete
  9. I know we are a day late on this but our office let the administrative professionals leave early and enjoy a windy afternoon. We answered our own phones for once and did our own e-filing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do this every day at our office because the owner and namesake of the law firm likes to pay people very little and not give any of his attorneys adequate support staff, forcing them to act as their own secretaries and paralegals as well.

      Then this same attorney likes to hit the town most nights, gambling up a storm, acting like he's 25, frequently blowing thousands of dollars all to satisfy his gambling addiction.

      Delete
    2. Better watch that trust account

      Delete
    3. @ 1:03. A buddy of mine recently decided to leave his firm and get a new job. He is a pretty new attorney, but he said that he got five or six offers (I think mostly from insurance defense firms). It sounds like the job market in that area is pretty hot. Even if you do not love that type of work, you'd end up with a secretary and support staff. Plus, as noted by 1:50, you probably won't have to watch the trust account so closely. Anyway, submit some resumes. Get away from that place.

      Delete