Thursday, May 17, 2018

Just One Thing

If you could change just one thing about the practice of law in Nevada, what would it be?

44 comments:

  1. MY THING: 100% VOTER TURNOUT IN BOG ELECTIONS!

    PLEASE REMEMBER TO VOTE IN THE BOG ELECTIONS! MORE IMPORTANTLY, PLEASE ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO VOTE! THIS ELECTION WILL BE DETERMINED BY TURNOUT!

    CHALLENGERS:
    Andrew Craner*
    Jessica Goodey*
    Terry Coffing
    Casey Quinn*
    Cory Santos, Sr.*
    Jay Shafer*

    INCUMBENTS:
    Paola Armeni
    John "Jack" Howard, Jr.
    Kari Stephens
    Ryan Works

    Statement by challenger Jay Shafer here: https://lasvegaslawblog.blogspot.com/2018/05/procedurally-improper.html?showComment=1526081354206#c6929486821478588602

    Bios here: https://www.nvbar.org/about-us/board-of-governors/board-governors-elections/2018-board-governors-candidates/

    *Candidates have publicly stated opposition to random audits of trust accounts.

    CHECK SPAM FOLDER FOR EMAIL LINK it comes from help@election-america.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep posting, 9:13. Oh, Dina Titus refuses to release her tax returns.

      Delete
  2. Appointed judges (with some type of workable checks and balances component)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At the very least there should be no money changing hands between attorneys and the judges they're appearing in front of.

      Delete
    2. I agree with 9:32 am. I'm not sure that having appointed judges would fix the problems we have. But at the very least we should be avoiding the appearance of bias on the part of judges who accept campaign donations from attorneys who appear in front of them.

      Delete
    3. I believe that judges who have to campaign and solicit donations is the source of so many problems. The quality of statutes and the quality of justices and the effectiveness of oversight for administrative agencies (including whatever the Bar is).

      http://iaals.du.edu/quality-judges/projects/oconnor-judicial-selection-plan

      Delete
    4. The O'Conner appointed judges plan is just as political, if not more so than a pure election system. You don't necessarily get better qualified candidates, you simply have a different group of individuals in control of the selection among the candidates. If you want the bar elites in control then the appointment process is your best process. If you want to bring change and shake up the status quo then the election model is for you.

      Delete
  3. Better judges on the Nevada Supreme Court - ones who are smart, honest, hard-working, and professional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would vote for that. (Oops. . .)

      Delete
  4. Replies
    1. Not a chance in hell

      Delete
    2. Harter is a lazy dullard. Stiglich in a landslide

      Delete
    3. Stiglich makes me nervous. I have heard good things about her, then bad. No judge should ignore facts.

      Delete
    4. Facts are an interesting animal. One person's facts is another's fiction... Over the last generation we seem to have lost the ability to discern fact from fiction, thus the concept of "alternate facts"

      Delete
    5. @2:26 PM
      Not sure why you would hold that perception. All my cases with Harter are resolved/decided very timely. Sounds like you do not even dabble in Family Court since Harter has the reputation of being extremely efficient.

      Delete
    6. And I'm sure the issues before Harter are quite complex.

      Delete
  5. That the State Bar become more than a star chamber for large law firms persecuting solo practitioners for smallest perceived infractions while ignoring documented proof of misdeeds by those working for a large firm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Im no fan of the state bar, but you have no credibility on the “documented proof of misdeeds” claim unless and until you post said documents.

      Delete
    2. Yeah I see these vague allegations against big firms on here all the time without corroboration. Despite the fact that I mainly practice against lawyers from big firms, probably 95% of the unethical conduct I have come across has been from solos and firms with <5 lawyers.

      And, when I have seen such conduct, I have reported it to the bar in line with my professional ethical obligations. Have you reported these "misdeeds" of which you are aware, 9:37?

      Delete
    3. Consider Justice Cherry's comments during the random audits discussion that he perceived that the State Bar targets smaller firms while allowing big firms to escape scrutiny.

      Delete
    4. Equal protection, the court cannot treat one party differently than the other, two uncons. Unconstitutional and unconscionable. I agree with Cherry.

      Delete
  6. 9:37 here, I was not trying to make a blanket statement on the "big firms" but rather the perspective of the Bar that if it relates to a "big firm" it is viewed with less suspicion than if a grievance is against a smaller firm. Please read my post carefully, it was not toward "big firms" but toward the Bar. It has become institutionalized in Nevada to the point that 10:14 says (with I doubt any empirical evidence or research) that it's "probably 95%" which kind of proves my point. Re: posting, do you really think I would post that online? In a blog full of anonymous users we debate with some assumed credibility - and if that's not good enough, don't know what to do. Simply stated, my point is this, if two exact grievances were sent to the Bar, one toward a large firm and one toward a solo, there is no doubt at least in my mind, the Bar would take the one toward the solo much more aggressively. My background is in a mid-sized firm so I don't have a dog in the fight in either case but I have been around the Bar enough to believe this. I suppose blog users can take it or reject it as they will.

    ReplyDelete
  7. More judicial holidays!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @1:31 -- Hell to the Yes! I want at least two more judicial holidays.

      Delete
  8. ECCs via phone conference allowed. Remind me why I have to drive 30 minutes to Plaintiff counsel's office to agree to 12 months of discovery following all the normal rules? As a lowly insurance defense attorney I appreciate the billing oportunity, but it's just a waste.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll be the first to admit that I don't know how this would play out, but has anyone attempted to utilize the Supreme Court rules for appearing via alternative means (e.g. videoconferencing)

      Delete
  9. As Neil Galatz (may he rest in peace) would have said, let's get rid of discovery.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A lot of it is really unnecessary. You could certainly set up a system with less discovery.

      Delete
    2. Certain firms would go out of business if they couldn’t depose my client’s third-grade teacher to find out if there had ever been any prior complaints of back pain.

      Delete
    3. 2:53 -- What a great idea. While we're at it, let's just settle every dispute with pistols at dawn.

      Delete
    4. Dawn is way too early... high noon would be a much more agreeable time for me.

      Delete
  10. "Word to your mother" on: 1) more judicial holidays and 2) big firms get away with things and small firms or solo practice lawyers get sanctioned or disciplined.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Violation of Constitutional rights claims should be allowed against State judges in Federal Court.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You, at a minimum have one helluva an appeal and strong grounds for an ethics complaint.

      Delete
  12. We don't know what you're talking about that the BOG isn't transparent. Look, our website has all of our upcoming meetings listed on it (including next year's annual meeting in Vail, Colorado)! https://www.nvbar.org/about-us/board-of-governors/

    Upcoming Meetings
    July 11, 2018: Chicago, IL (Annual Meeting)
    Sept. 11-12, 2018: Fallon, NV
    November 15, 2018: Las Vegas, NV
    Jan. 23-24, 2019: Carson City, NV (Meeting with Nevada Supreme Court)
    April 11, 2019: Reno, NV
    June 26, 2019: Vail, CO (Annual Meeting)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Send me the link for Noel Gate's book, Kari. Thanks

      Delete
    2. Why so many two day meetings?

      Delete
    3. That you (ummmm I mean "they") are meeting and what is being discussed are very different things. No one would say that the Grand Jury process is transparent just because it is pretty easy to figure out when it convenes.

      Delete
  13. Bring back the apprenticeship path as an alternative to law school.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Boyd school of law classes of 2011 and 2012. Thank you to Meg Schmidt for being the meanest b*tch to me during my 2L year. I'll never forget what a nasty person you were to me. I seriously hope you have a terrible life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unburden yourself from the grudge. Really. I am sure this Meg is an absolutely reprehensible human being but who cares? Let it go.

      Delete