Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Manchester


  • Criminal defense attorney Alexis Plunkett faces multiple felony counts for providing a cell phone to inmates at the CCDC. [RJ]
  • Governor Sandoval will not support the Gaming Control Board having independent counsel. [TNIRJ]
  • The jury found the Sleeping Beauty doctor guilty of rape. [Fox5Vegas]
  • To commenter at 1:40 yesterday--Thanks for your comments. Yes, the topics may have been a little boring or uninteresting to you, but we have a variety of lawyers in different practice areas that like to talk about a number of things. And the blog has more readers now that it ever has. That said, with Memorial Day approaching and the summer heat coming, there will be a few days here and there that we might skip posting. And if you have anything interesting to discuss, please let us know.

93 comments:

  1. Suzy Squarebush 2.0? Or a witch hunt against a decent defense attorney?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Never heard the ending to the SS 1.0 story. What happened in the end?

      Delete
    2. Her husband divorced her, and she got the hell out of Dodge. Last seen practicing criminal defense in Dallas, TX.

      Delete
  2. Alexis sounds like a true believer. Most women have prison fantasies. Alexis lives them. We all have our fetishes. I like thigh high boots and a french beret, for example.

    To keep up with my daily SJW quota: It is outrageous that womyn have an extra hiding place for cell phones. Injustice! I demand all criminal defense attorneys be given the option of surgical modification to allow for equality. Now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alexis posted on her Facebook that "Each and every phonecall was open and related to bond," and claimed it was a witchhunt.

    My question is this: if she provided her client with a method to circumvent the recording devices in CCDC, even if her intent was noble and the other party was a bondsman, doesn't that make her legitimately guilty?

    Direct communication with a detained inmate outside of official channels is prohibited. Says so in every criminal courtroom at the RJC. The document she signed before visiting her client allows her to use her cellphone. It doesn't allow her to make it available to her client.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 10:55 AM- Alexis Plunkett and the witchhunt.-Where was this posted on her FB or elsewhere? To those who practice criminal law, doesn't she have a defense here. Providing a cell phone to a prisoner is a crime, what about letting them use it for presumably a lawful purpose such as calling a bail bondsman?

      Delete
    2. It was on the law office's FB page, but it's been taken down. But on the internet, nothing is truly gone: http://imgur.com/a/gsAwo

      Delete
    3. She's essentially arguing harmless error. The issue is that an error is still an error. Langford will work out some gross misdemeanor deal, she'll take it and the story will end. Unless she doesn't shut the fuck up.

      Delete
    4. You know what every witch hunt needs? A Witch.

      Delete
  4. Her Facebook rants are pretty entertaining to read. She needs to keep her mouth shut.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seriously. Dumb crim defendants often admit elements of the offense while trying to explain themselves.

      Delete
    2. I certainly hopes she advises her clients not to make any statement, on social media or otherwise, regarding their case. And she would be wise to heed that advice.

      Delete
    3. Um. WTF is she thinking? She needs to keep her mouth shut and lawyer up.

      Delete
    4. She does need to keep her mouth shut. And yes, providing the cell. phone to the inmate is a clear violation of law, as well as protocol.

      But, if we give her the benefit of the doubt and assume that there was no nefarious purpose intended, does this dumb lapse of judgment really justify multiple felony counts?

      I would say no, but she is clearly hurting her cause, and sticking her thumb in the eye of the D.A., by ranting and justifying what she did, rather than recognizing it as a dumb lapse of judgment, and show real remorse, mea culpa and all that.

      By publicly lashing out, and not taking accountability, she is giving the D.A. no chance to save face or to act proportionally. She is forcing them to over-react, which may lead to some real disproportionate number of charges, with a far more difficult avenue to reach a reasonable, proportionate negotiated resolution.

      She should have said nothing, and should have posted nothing. And then when it came time to negotiate, be real apologetic and contrite. Had she handled it that way, her lack of diabolic motive would, in my view, really aid her. But she is presently on the war path and it does her no good.

      Delete
    5. Alexis appears to be somebody who practices criminal law, but as a criminal defense attorney for over ten years I have yet to meet anybody who knows her. We're a pretty tight knit community so I find it kind of odd thats what she holds herself out to be. Also her choice in attorneys would not be on my list if I ever ran into trouble but that's just me.

      Delete
    6. Her niche is apparently in representing PD clients after she convinces them that if they pay her, she can get them a better deal then the PD. Check her office FB feed. It's full of her bragging about how much better she's done than the PD would have done.

      Delete
    7. The woman sounds like a moron. Think you are better off with the PD's office.

      Delete
    8. @4:17, I agree. I have been practicing criminal defense for over 15 years and have never met her. Her attorney would not be one of the top 100 attorneys I would turn to for help. I'd rather have the PD!

      Delete
    9. So what is wrong with Langford that he is not in the Top 100 crimdef attorneys? And who would you hire?

      Delete
    10. I would hire Langford to act in a play.

      Delete
    11. I would hire Plunkett or Ma. Border.

      Delete
    12. I'm a civil practitioner, so I'm fully aware I'm talking out of turn, but it seems like you'd want someone who is tight enough with the DAs to swing the right deal, since this is never going to trial. So maybe someone like Tomsheck? I've heard good things about Sanft too.

      Delete
    13. Tomsheck maybe, never Sanft. I would want someone who can also save my bar license.

      Delete
    14. Tomsheck isn't saving your bar license. Bill Terry would be the call since this implicates both SBN and DA. With that said, even charged as a felony, she is at max getting a suspension from the NSC. This is not a disbarment.

      Delete
    15. Terry. Christiansen. Pitaro. Gentile. Sgro. Oram.Momat. Short list, best of the best.

      Delete
    16. What did you do that Tomsheck isn't saving your bar license? He saved mine. And several others that I know personally. Plus, he is a lot more affordable than Bill for bar proceedings and handles more cases over there than anybody but Bill. Bill is great, but either Josh or Bill is a top 3 call (I would also include Pitaro if you can get him to focus).

      Delete
    17. Dennis Kennedy should be on that list for state bar issues.

      Delete
    18. Dennis Kennedy is great on bar issues. Warhola handles way more bar hearings than Tomsheck. This is why OBC cases and criminal cases are generally split. Tomsheck is fine for criminal proceedings but not SBN.

      Delete
    19. I'm a DA. I don't know anything about state bar cases but I know that if you are in criminal trouble or think you may be in trouble it's shut up and call Bill Terry or Josh Tomscheck.

      Delete
    20. Suspect there is a different answer in Federal Court.

      Delete
    21. For the most part I agree with your list, 11:40. Add Kennedy. Subtract Momot. Tomsheck doesn't make my top 10, especially if NSC suspension is a possibility.

      Delete
    22. 11:40 and 1:50 are clearly older attorneys. I understand your reverence for the old guard but they're getting long in the tooth, Christiansen and Oram excepted, I would use Josh for trial, Bill to negotiate something, and Chesnoff and Shoenfeld if I'm hoping for some juice to grease the wheels...

      Delete
    23. Am I the only one who wonders how many of these "anonymous" posts commending the incredible trial skills or remarkable physical appearance of an attorney are actually posted by the attorney himself/herself?

      Delete
    24. No because if I was posting about myself above I would have included reference to my $3000 suits and more than adequate package

      Delete
    25. @2:56 then you're definitely not Tomsheck!

      Delete
    26. Doesn't really matter who you'd call, because if you are one of the top 100 criminal defense lawyers in Las Vegas you probably refuse to represent Plunkett, whoever she is, after her media commentary. Unbelievable.

      Delete
    27. @4:04 and that explains why she's left with Langford

      Delete
    28. Who hell recommended Warhola? That guy is an idiot.

      Delete
    29. Nobody recommended Warhola. They said that he represents more attorneys in bar proceedings than probably anyone (including Bill Terry).

      Delete
    30. I am a third year and almost never get to go to Court. I have always wondered who to hire if someone got in trouble. I asked my boss, who has been practicing nearly 35 years this question. His response “how the hell would I have practiced thirty years if I got in trouble?” I asked a friend who works at the clerks office in the courthouse and is in court all the time what she thought. She said “it depends what you did. If you killed someone you would hire Pete or maybe Chris Oram. (I don’t know who Pete is and was too embarrassed to ask). If you raped someone (I really don’t think she thought I would be raping anyone) you should hire Mr. Draskovich. If you got a DUI probably Chip (Siegel. I figured that one out on my own. Thank you Google) or John Watkins. She said there are a bunch of other good lawyers and mentioned many by name that are already on here including Mr. Pitaro, Mr. Tomshek, Mr. Schonfeld and Mr. Momot (although she said he wasn’t what he once was). Then she said Warren Geller was cute and kind of got off topic. Just before my boss left for the day he came in my office and shut the door. He sat close to me and made me uncomfortable. I thought he was going to touch me. He said he was always here for me. After panicking I realized he thought I was arrested or in trouble. I had to assure him I wasn't. I wish I hadn't said anything.

      Delete
    31. LOL- thanks for the laugh @ 4:53 pm. I wonder who your boss is? ... and yes, he probably was sitting too close for comfort. Agh- men. Always trying to help in the completely and most inappropriate way.

      Delete
    32. No women on anybody's list?

      Delete
    33. Just gotta say, can you point out where I mentioned the PD on my website? And disparaged them? I worked there in 2006 (I've worked for multiple PD's) and have the ultimate respect for that office and any others where I've worked.

      Delete
    34. 4:53 that is a weird question to ask your boss and no wonder he thought you were in some kind of trouble. I question your judgment.

      Delete
    35. 2:46 no you are not the only one who wonder that. In fact, when I see those, I don't "wonder" - I assume it is that person.

      Delete
    36. Alexis, what would you tell a client who was blabbing and posting all over the place? Probably tell them to stop it and be quiet. Hint, hint.

      Delete
    37. Hey Alexis, someone brought up the question that you routinely editorialize about and disparage people who are accused of crimes on your Facebook page. Are they not entitled to the same presumptions of innocence and right to be rehabilitated as the clients you represent? Do you also wish your clients would rot in Hell when you are done representing them or do you only represent the innocent and exonerated?

      Delete
    38. March 14. "Last week I subbed in on a public defender case and got the client's bond reduced by $100,000--allowing him to bond out. Always consult with a private criminal defense attorney before posting a high bond. Think about it--why pay just the bondsman when you may be able to pay less for a private attorney AND bond?" Want to explain why it was necessary to cast aspersions on publicly funded lawyers!

      Delete
    39. I'd post the others I saw, but I don't want to have to wade between your Perv o' the Week posts, and your referring to my hometown of Las Vegas as "the ninth circle."

      Delete
    40. I simply stated one time that I subbed in on a public defender case...um okay? No derogatory comments there. Also, I openly do not like alleged criminals who allegedly commit crimes against victims as a result of their power--specifically those who allegedly abuse children as teachers. I do not appreciate police officers who represent themselves as amazing law-abiding citizens and are then convicted of crimes. Same with corrections officers. Go to Tomsheck for that, and he's great. I tend to represent repeat felons who know what it is and aren't using power to abuse anyone. Electrocute me for having a client base. They know what's up and I cater to them and not anyone else.

      Delete
    41. She just cannot seem to stop talking. Seems like she thinks this is publicity to use as a marketing opportunity. Hey Alexis, I have no dog in this fight as I don't do crime law, but I agree with 7:21/7:56/7:58. What you "simply stated" comes across as a not-so-subtle slam on the PD's office.

      Delete
    42. Let me fix that:

      "I tend[ed] to represent repeat felons who kn[e]w what it is and [we]ren't using power to abuse anyone. Electrocute me for [formerly] having a client base. They kn[e]w what's up and I cater[ed] to them and not anyone else."

      I'm sure you'll find plenty of other jobs as a disbarred felon though!

      Delete
    43. Alexis seems to have a felon fetish. Maybe she can use that as her defense.

      Delete
    44. Practicing criminal law here for over 25 years, I am in the Courthouse every day and have never heard her name.

      Delete
    45. Alexis: You did not answer my question (or maybe you did and your answering is just abominable as a criminal defense attorney). I asked "Are they not entitled to the same presumptions of innocence and right to be rehabilitated as the clients you represent?" Your response said that "I openly do not like alleged criminals who allegedly commit crimes against victims as a result of their power--specifically those who allegedly abuse children as teachers." So because the newspaper and DA say that someone has been arrested, you feel the right to call them scum based upon allegations (and mere allegations) As a criminal defense attorney, are you saying that the DA/USA never overcharges, never overstretches the allegations, never brings shoddily investigated or marginal cases against people?

      You state that you "tend to represent repeat felons who know what it is and aren't using power to abuse anyone." So your clients are people who have committed crimes and are recidivists, people who know what the law is and continue to break it? I searched ODYSSEY and found a number of people who you represent who are accused of crimes of power, violence and abuse. Should we all believe that they are guilty merely because their name appeared in the newspaper? On second thought, should we all presume that you are guilty and that you should rot in Hell?

      I really would like to root for you to win your case; however you are making it hard because you appear to be such a hypocrite.

      Delete
    46. Alexis: 1:58 p.m. here again. You've posted a couple times here. Let's assume you are right when you point out you did not disparage the Public Defender. I believe your attorney will advise you to post no further.

      Also, posting about what type of criminal defendants you vigorously defend, as opposed to criminal defendants you essentially find to be scum(those who use their position of power over others), although presumably your true thoughts, should not be publicly disseminated.

      Your present case aside, considering that you are a criminal defense attorney, I don't think you should be publicly indulging your conscience to this degree. You are trying to draw some very difficult, and inevitably very blurry, line between criminal defendants worthy of an aggressive defense vs. criminal defendants who you find to be too scummy to deserve having you protect their sacred constitutional rights.

      Even though you mentioned school teachers and police officers as individuals you find too repulsive to represent due to your criteria that they are in a position of control over their victims, many other criminal defendants were in some position of power and control over victims, even if the criminal defendant was not in a formal position of authority like an officer or a teacher. Those criminal defendants, who allegedly victimized someone, will not want to hire you because anytime there is a victim other than an arguable victimless crime(like drug-related crimes are argued as sometimes being) you have drawn a clear line of demarcation that you think such people are scum and you don't want them as your clients.

      People who commit armed robbery, rape, murder,domestic violence, and any crimes of violence, are exercising extreme violence and control over their victims even though the defendant may not have the title of officer or teacher. And such crimes are often far more violent than the crimes involving officers or teachers abusing their positions to victimize someone.

      So, I am suggesting that your purported standard is so absurd in that you are not concerned with the level and violence of the harm caused to the victim. You are chiefly concerned with the title or position of the defendant. So, if someone is a teacher or a cop, and they cause a lot less harm to their victim than an armed robber, rapist or murderer caused to their victim, you get on your soap box and trumpet that the armed robber, or murderer, is entitled to an aggressive defense, but that a cop or teacher who victimized their victim to a lot less extent than the armed robber or murderer, is scum and unworthy of your time, and is an offense to your conscience, merely because the formal position they held gave them greater access and power over the victim?

      If your main focus of which client deserves your representation and best efforts is defined by your artificial lines of demarcation about what type of people you find most personally offensive based on the position they hold, I find you to be a child who should never be representing anyone accused of a crime.

      However, giving you the benefit of the doubt, and hearing that(despite some of these postings) you are by no means lacking as a defense attorney, I am assuming that you are just reacting out of stress and frustration to the impact of the serious ordeal you are dealing with, and what you(correctly) perceive to be attacks and untrue and/or unfair statements by some of the bloggers.

      Which goes back to I don't know why you don't consult your lawyer before you react in such a public, documented, potentially permanent, fashion.



      Delete
    47. Wait until the police report comes out. She gave him a lot more than just a cell phone.

      Delete
    48. 4:51 Alexis, take this from someone who has been grist for this very Blog and had horribly defamatory things said about me by Anonymous and Anonymous (who know who they are even if I don't). Unplug your computer. Get a luggage lock and put it through the little hole in the plug. Give your attorney the key. I totally get the desire to want to lash out and defend yourself on this Blog and to the RJ (especially since there is no one else doing it). But don't.

      With that said, 4:13 and $:51 nailed it. The picture you paint of yourself is awful. My opinion of you is not colored by the DA's words or the RJ's words; those are allegations. My opinion and perspective is colored by yours words. Before you shut off your computer, shut off your Facebook. Take down all of the hypocritical and frankly really offensive things that you have posted. If you want to be a social commentator, get out of criminal defense and take Voldemort's job. If you want to represent human beings, people with feelings lives stories excuses addictions families and reasons, put down the pen and really think about what type of person you are and what kind of manifestly consistent ethos you really have and really should have. I pray you never read this far into the message because you have already shut off your computer by the time you would have gotten to this part of the post and that Robert Langford can read it to you later.

      Delete
    49. @5:53 PM:I guess she needs to get it from somewhere. Inmates have that same desperation and she is filling that void.

      As it is, she is giving the district attorney's office and the state bar ammo to bury her. Alexis needs to do what she tells her clients to do: cease all online comments.

      Delete
    50. Based on tonight's RJ article, looks like someone was fillin' that void. Drinking beer with your client at his mamma's house, letting him get all up in your business during visitation. Guess you definitely do have a target client base.

      Delete
  5. There is a War on Family Court being waged by VIP and Steve Sanson. Doesn't he have a radio show that no one listens to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was stuck listening to it once....then I got my radio fixed!

      Delete
    2. Maybe but no one here pays any attention to him. And don't mention him by name or he will start posting dozens of loony rants here.

      Delete
    3. I saw his new billboard and it made me chuckle.

      Delete
    4. I am NOT Steve Sanson...but I approve this message.

      Delete
    5. I hope basic literacy is not required for Voldemort's attack on Pecos. He could always challenge each judge to a death MMA match, even though he purports himself to handicapped. Good luck with that war, Voldy.

      Delete
    6. Where is the billboard? I could use a laugh today.

      Delete
  6. So I went to the firm Facebook page. I am lost. I have never seen a criminal defense firm post so often what scumbags accused criminals are (who are merely charged and not found guilty). It is the most bassackwards page I have ever seen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Is CCDC trying to retaliate against Plunkett? Same inmate?


    https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/homicides/nevada-inmates-lawyer-says-cover-up-attempted-in-deadly-2014-prison-shooting/

    https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/las-vegas-attorney-calls-allegations-against-her-witch-hunt/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is 8:39 using the Fox News tactic of throwing out some conspiracy theory then putting a question mark at the end of it? "Is Obama a Muslim?"

      Delete
  8. Is there a way to pull up documents that were filed by another party in a District Court case in the new filing system? Can't seem to find it anywhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Register for the Attorney Portal (successor to Attorney Corner). Gives you full document access, albeit only the first page is viewable without downloading the entire thing.

      Delete
  9. Whether you are paperless or traditional, or a hybrid of the two, maintaining your paper or electronic file can be daunting. One major issue I've noticed is that no two firms - or even two attorneys - define "pleadings" or "discovery" in the same manner. Do you follow a "put it all in one folder, tab and index it and we'll find it when needed" plan, or a "sub-folder after sub-folder after sub-folder after sub-folder" type of plan? How do you define what is a "pleading" or what is "discovery?" Is it one way for the firm or do you allow each attorney room to personalize?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pleadings to me are pretty limited. Complaint, answer, counterclaims, etc. There should be a separate folder for Motions, oppositions, replies, and orders (some people file Orders separately from motions). Discovery is written discovery, depositions, disclosures, etc.

      Delete
    2. For me, a pleading is something filed with the court, discovery is something exchanged between the parties (counsel) that falls within the NRCP rules (16.1, 16.2, 16.205, NRCP 26-36, etc.)

      Delete
    3. A pleading is a document file with the Court that names causes of actions and seeks relief for those actions. Complaints, Answers, Counterclaims and Petitions (probate and trust) are pleadings. Motions seek relief from the Court but do not assert new or unique causes of actions. I thought everyone knew this. I guess we can't all be Boyd '13.

      Delete
    4. @ 10:05; If you want to be technical, a pleading is "There shall be a complaint and an answer; a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such; an answer to a cross-claim, if the answer contains a cross-claim; a third-party complaint, if a person who was not an original party is summoned under the provisions of Rule 14; and a third-party answer, if a third-party complaint is served. No other pleading shall be allowed, except that the court may order a reply to an answer or a third-party answer." [NRCP 7(a)]. In contrast, An application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial, shall be made in writing, shall state with particularity the grounds therefor, and shall set forth the relief or order sought is a motion/other paper [NRCP 7(b)].

      That being said, the original poster was asking about how you maintain a client file. On a personal note, it is a waste for me to maintain separate folders differentiation between 1) pleadings, 2) motions/papers and 3) discovery (which can then be further subdivided untold additional ways.

      Delete
    5. Well ... if you're going to be a paper person, it really depends on the size of the case. Arbitration; simple car accidents; nominal amount of documents - one folder. If you're doing construction defect, or a case with serious injuries, damages, etc., sub folders would be the way to go.

      Delete
  10. Maybe out of topic but worthy of discussion. I'm a white male lawyer in my late 40s at mid-size firm. I witness woman on woman hate almost daily: snarky comments about opposing counsel when she leaves deposition; refusal of opposing counsel to communicate with female associate and insisting all calls must be with me; one female attorney calling client and blaming other another female co-worker for something insignificant when no one asked who is to blame; and so on.

    Can we all just get along?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought this kind of drama would go away the older I got, but it definitely has not. Every office has that one person who cries about everything and the one who complains about everything.

      Delete
    2. Great management starts at the top.....

      Delete
    3. Very interesting topic.....Having been in the legal industry for over 30 years, and an avid people watcher (what makes people tick), and a woman,I think it comes down to respect and professionalism. It appears that there are some of the younger generation (than me)-the let's say,under 40ish, failed in the respect for others class somewhere along the way, or it is self esteem issues, or the queen bee syndrome (narcissistic), chip on their shoulder, need to prove something unnecessary. Now while I can deal the snarky if necessary, it is not the usual form of doing business. We do have a few cases with the type. Have been known to give someone the old fashioned: "you kiss your kids/husband/boyfriend, etc. with that mouth" line, usually gets them to shut up and actually listen for a few minutes. They think the "direct" low class verbal assault is good for them- full of empty threats. That's OK - I just get them all on paper.

      Delete
    4. I disagree with 1:21. I've seen more nastiness from the over-40 crowd than under 30. Marilyn Fine comes to mind.

      Delete
    5. Marilyn Fine is one of the nastiest POS I have ever encountered. Kathy England used to be but she has mellowed.

      Delete
  11. There is no such thing as respectfully disagreeing with someone anymore. Today, it's all about "I'm right and if you disagree it's because you are a (fill in the blank with any disparaging comment)."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As a female 30-something lawyer, I run into this inability to respectfully disagree from 40 to 50-year-old male attorneys. I have not run into it with female attorneys, though that's not to say I won't at some point.

      Delete
  12. Bad little Alexis liked the real thing better than her right hand. In prison. At inmate's home. Naughty!https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/report-details-late-night-jailhouse-attorney-client-rendezvous/

    ReplyDelete