Monday, April 10, 2017

Spring Break 2017


  • Here's a look at some of the victims of Robert Graham's decision to pilfer his trust account. [RJ]
  • Neil Gorsuch is being sworn in as the newest associate justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. [Las Vegas Sun
  • Current Boyd students are trying to change the law in Nevada to clarify the statutes on pari-mutuel wagering. [RJ]
  • This week is spring break for the CCSD, which explains why some of your colleagues are out this week and why others won't be returning your calls. Any spring break traditions or recommendations?

25 comments:

  1. The Rob Graham case should have its own blog. Who you people?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Let's talk about the forcible removal of the doctor on the United Airlines flight last night. Crazy! ANy wrong doing on part of doctor by refusing to get off the plane (supposedly said he wanted to call his lawyer...)? settlement will never be disclosed, but knocking a doctor out and dragging him off the plane, should be a pretty big payout, eh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nope, see the Air Carrier Access Act

      Delete
    2. I disagree. There will be a payout - to the passenger and other people on the plane who witnesses this debacle. Dollars to donuts, United will, at a minimum, pay this guy a reasonable sum to make sure a complaint is never even filed, because if one is, this whole story will resurface, and it will come back again and again each time some key action is taken in the case.

      Sometimes the law doesn't matter and, in this case, with the video out there, United has already been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. They allowed this guy to board and then dragged him off to fix their own mistake. You can rest assured that at least one airline will have advertising referencing this debacle up and circulating by week's end.

      United will fall on their sword, both in payouts and firing the staff responsible (seriously how do you allow any passengers to board before dealing with an overbooking situation? That's standard procedure - and this never would have happened had standard procedure been followed and this guy hadn't been allowed to board in the first place). Sometimes, the law doesn't matter, and claims get resolved as a decision as to what is best for business. This isn't a situation likely to reoccur all that frequently since overbooking is usually dealt with prior to boarding, so regardless of what the lawyers say, management will try to pay this guy out so he (and the story) goes away, and goes away quickly.

      Delete
    3. I suspect United will distance themselves from the actions of the Police and indicate that United never asked for violence/force to be used in order to free up the seats. Where United will pay is to address the fact that United was freeing up the seats for their own crewmembers allegedly, which is not an "oversold" situation. Did United have the right to control who was on their aircraft? Absolutely. But they should have known that you never let people onto the aircraft and then believe that you will do the bumps. Bad move.

      Delete
    4. It would have been far better for United to simply to continue to increase the payout for volunteers. If $800 gets you no takers, then increase in $100 increments until you get a bite. For the tune of a few thousand dollars at most, United would have avoided this S@%T Show.

      Delete
    5. 11:43 - apparently federal law caps how much compensation an airline can offer in these circumstances. What you propose is common sense, but the law prohibits them for doing so.

      Delete
    6. 1:17 again. Per this article, max compensation is $1,300, so United definitely could've improved their offer to try and get additional volunteers instead of stopping at $800: http://www.businessinsider.com/why-you-should-volunteer-to-get-bumped-off-a-flight-2015-6

      Delete
    7. "The Chicago Department of Aviation said in a statement Monday afternoon that the incident was 'not in accordance with' standard operating procedure and the officer's actions were 'not condoned' by the department. The officer involved was placed on administrative leave effective Monday pending review of the situation, the department said. The Chicago Police Department said in a statement earlier Monday that around 6 p.m. on Sunday, a 69-year-old passenger 'became irate' after he was asked to leave the plane." Even the police are saying this was not justified.

      Nothing like beating up a 69 year old man who is (justifiably) upset that United is physically removing him from a flight just to accommodate their own personnel.

      Delete
    8. 11:43 here. Airlines are not limited on how much they pay if they so choose. However, if they pay you 4 times the cost of your ticket up to a maximum of $1,350, they can involuntarily bump you if the delay for an alternate flight is two hours or more (if delay for next flight is less than two hours, it is double the fare up to a maximum of $675). Thus, if the airline wants to involuntarily bump you, they don't have to pay more than $1,350. We can all agree that United attempted to involuntarily bump this dude, so they were not even complying with federal law.

      Delete
    9. Airlines have forgotten a vital business concept: C-U-S-T-O-M-E-R first. Never flying United again.

      Delete
    10. Before I put in my two cents on this, I'm waiting to see the video footage prior to the police getting to the plane. I've seen police remove a passenger that was loudly complaining that his seat was next to a bathroom, and wouldn't calm down at the flight attendants requests. I was happy they kicked him off my flight. If he was already pissed at just having to sit next to the bathroom, what would he have done to the person that took the first number 2! Granted, the police didn't become physical in their removal, but they did threaten the guy that they would get physical if he didn't move himself.

      Delete
    11. I am not an attorney, but enjoy reading this blog. My question is in regards to the Air Carrier Access Act. Does it not state they (meaning the airlines) have the right to refuse access?. So the passenger was given access and was seated in his assigned seat. Is there anything in act stating, they have right to deny access once it is given?

      Delete
  3. How long will it take for a full accounting to be performed on Graham's case? With the rate these types of cases are resolved in Nevada, it could be 2025 before we know the full extent of the damage he caused.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Very depressing after reading the RJ about Graham's victims. Perhaps the State Bar could invite all members to donate towards fundraising for his victims. The article links a gofundme account for one of the victims. The account has a goal to raise $1 million, but sits at just over $1,000, raised so far. If each attorney were to donate $20 to a victim that would go a long way to helping people and making the Bar more compassionate. Your thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take the large portion of my 450 annual dues currently going to pay for Board of Governors unecessary trips to Hawaii, Texas and Seattle and pay the victims.

      Delete
    2. 10:35 AM here, I would not disagree. Perhaps the Bar can take a look at its books and redirect a large portion of our dues to fund an account set up specifically for Graham victims. This case has the potential to be the largest, if not already, of any, wherein the public has been victimized by a licensed Nevada attorney.

      Delete
    3. I disagree. Once we pay off Graham's victims, are we going to pay off the millions stolen by Alessi & Koenig? We have a system to pay claims. It works well. It caps out at $50,000 which is a lot of money. Because when the Client Security Fund becomes a "Take what you want" system, you and I will be paying $1500 a year in bar dues just to replenish the pot. No I am fine with it just the way it is.

      Delete
    4. Many have complained that under current leadership that the State Bar is prosecuting too many attorneys for relatively minor matters that the Bar would not have pursued a few years ago.

      If that's actually true, it would be nice if there were a shift in priorities, that far fewer case would be prosecuted, and the money saved could be shifted to the Client Security Fund.

      But I don't know how practical it is to hope that anything like that comes to fruition. Is it possible that some of the funds earmarked for the disciplinary section could be transferred to the Client Security Fund? Money spent to compensate victims should be a much greater priority than pushing a lot of matters through to hearings where an attorney's main problem was not always returning his clients phone calls. Obviously, a lot of attorneys do need to be pursued and sanctioned by the State Bar--particularly for dishonesty issues surrounding funds and/or neglecting matters, etc. But, based on a great deal of anecdotal input, it appears many matters are being prosecuted than would not have been prosecuted five years ago. And the sanctions seem harsher.

      Am I misinformed about that?

      Delete
    5. Not only are matters being prosecuted that would not have been pursued but the penalties are completely disproportionate. Furthermore fines are now being added in lots of cases in a seeming effort to fund Client Security.

      Delete
  5. It's a great idea. I will be donating.

    One of the victims forgives Graham, does not want revenge, and only wants others protected from him.

    If they truly forgive him, then I must acknowledge that this victim is a far better human being than I could ever hope to be.

    Graham's not even particularly remorseful. His highly qualified non-apologies portray himself as a victim of this mess, rather than as the villain who orchestrated the whole thing to feed his personal greed.

    I understand that he needs to be careful as to how much he publicly says on account of how it could be used in Bar proceedings, civil suits, and criminal prosecutions. That said, from his various remarks it's crushingly obvious that he feels he is a victim of financial circumstances beyond his control, including a bad economy.

    That is ludicrous. If he was generating a monthly amount that was not nearly sufficient to cover over-head, then it is preposterous to spend six figures in advertising each month as a pretext to generate additional business to cover such overhead. Also, if one is operating at a deficiency month after month, year after year, they need to drastically scale down their personal life style, as well as their office overhead. None of that was done, and apparently, the opposite was the case. The more in debt he fell, the more lavishly he and his family seemed to live.

    So, I could never forgive him. God bless the victims who have it in their heart to do so. Some lawyers have blogged on this site how sorry they feel for Graham's family, including his wife. His wife, who is an attorney, and apparently his law partner for some period of time, presumably knew, to a large extent what was occurring. She could not possibly have been completely blind as to what was occurring in her own life. I reserve all my compassion for the victims. If others wish to feel sympathy for Graham's family, who lived an opulent life style while victims suffered, that is their decision.

    I realize that it is difficult for his children(who are apparently young adults and living away from home) to read of their father's misadventures, they will get over it. But the victims will never be able to bounce back.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Multiple people down in elementary school shooting in San Bernardino.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-shooting-san-bernardino-north-folk20170410-story.html

    ReplyDelete
  7. NV Bar is being snarky on social media again, this time about United. Who is running that account?!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely an embarrassment to the State Bar of Nevada. Please stop and stop immediately.

      Delete