Friday, May 11, 2018

Procedurally Improper


  • The Nevada Supreme Court, seemingly in an effort to show how nimbly it can act despite all your comments to the contrary, has already issued a decision on the Scott Dozier execution case. [TNI]
  • The I-Team looks into the real numbers behind Nevada's opioid deaths. [LasVegasNow]
  • Could Vegas really have an NBA team within the next 5 years? [Las Vegas Sun]
  • Clark County attorneys should be getting an email today about elections for the Board of Governors. There are a total of 10 candidates for 4 positions (meanwhile, in the North there were exactly 2 candidates for 2 positions). You can read the candidate statements here:

80 comments:

  1. Nimbly? It is an 8 page decision rendered on procedural grounds. It is hardly Marbury v. Madison.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The four current Board Members are automatically disqualified. The candidates who appear most strongly to advocate tearing apart the current system and making the State Bar more accountable to members are Craner, Quinn and Shafer. They get my votes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^^ What he/she said.

      Delete
    2. Agree: Quinn, Santos, Schaeffer, Works

      Delete
    3. Craner, Goodey, Quinn, Santos. Maybe Coffing.

      Delete
    4. Not Works. He's a current BOG. And, on the audit committee. Definitely NOT Works.

      Delete
    5. Ryan Works? One of the guys who pushed audits? Never. No way. Sorry your political career is over.

      Delete
    6. Current members are out. Craner is a yes for sure. Quinn, definitely, based on his statement that's he's against trust audits and wants transparency (also because he's a solid dude). Shafer has waaay too many platitudes for me to trust him, and his use of LDS cultural subtext irritates me (and I'm LDS). Santos doesn't want audits or mandatory insurance. He's in. Coffing/Goodey? I want both. Crap.

      Delete
    7. I know Shafer (and I am not LDS). He is actually committed to tearing apart not only the BoG but really tearing into what is going on at OBC (which is not something many of the current candidates indicated). Honestly tearing apart the current BoG is important but someone who really wants to scrutinize what OBC is doing is crucial.

      Delete
    8. Well, too bad Shafer didn't say so in his statement. Instead we got a bunch of banality.

      Delete
    9. Delusional about Quinn. Says one thing, doesn't follow through.

      Delete
    10. 8:34,

      Well, then he should have said so in his candidate statement. Didn't vote for him.

      Craner, Goodey, Quinn & Santos!

      Delete
    11. Really... Shoulder to the Wheel....

      Delete
    12. I love this thread...

      Delete
    13. Shoulder to the wheel . . . reminds me of https://binged.it/2KdiUij

      Delete
  3. What about Ryan Works? He's so precious. I just want to pinch his cheek he's so cute.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let him stay cute. But Ryan Works needs to be voted out. He's part of the cabal of cavalier and clueless incumbents.

      Delete
    2. I fourth and fifth on Works, hell no. Hell no Armeni.

      Delete
  4. Cranee, Goode, Quinn and Santos for the BOG - the 4 candidates who metioned opposition to random audits, and bonus points to Santos for opposing the UBE

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Those are who I just voted for as well...

      Delete
    2. I replaced Coffing for Quinn. Coffing is concerned with the "value" for our high dues. Quinn might be good too, and will probably win since for a lot of people, Coffing represents the old guard.

      Either way, I'm hoping the incumbents get the boot.

      Delete
    3. I want current BOGS out, five votes, how do I optimize my votes? Four votes, one each for the above, and second vote for one of them. Please advise.

      Delete
    4. Only four votes in Clark County.

      Delete
    5. Thanks for the opinions on these four. I just voted the same. Time to start over for the BOGS.

      Delete
    6. Okay, one vote each. No incumbents

      Delete
  5. For everyone's convenience!

    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

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

    Interesting that the challengers seem to have more specific issues in their statements while the incumbents mostly rely on their own resumes and history with the Bar.

    Make sure you vote and make sure everyone in your firm and in your orbit votes. The incumbents are well-connected and will probably receive the same number of votes from the same people. Whether or not we have a change election will entirely come down to new voters like myself. Please vote AND make an effort to get others to vote as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would add that people should do what I did which is add this stuff to your Facebook and social media.

      Delete
    2. In their position statements, Craner, Goodey, Quinn and Santos clearly articulate their views on transparency and opposition to the worst of the BOG's recent overreaching abuses. The other challengers, Shafer and Coffing, appear more tepid and benign on reform. We need strong unafraid reform activists on the board, especially with two returning incumbents expected to serve up more of the same BS from Washoe County.

      Delete
    3. Shafer is pretty forceful about this. He wants to bring the Convention to Nevada, make all the ADKTs more public and throw light on all the inner workings of the state bar.

      Delete
    4. That was my reading. Shafer seemed to be the most Anti-Establishment candidate on there.

      Delete
  6. I am so proud of you guys on the blog. I don't mean it in a pretentious way. Vote the jerks out, judges and BOGS. My BOG ballot was in the spam, so double check, please. You guys made my morning by voting and caring about this!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't assume this is a victory. It could be that the discontent here is a vocal minority. I don't think so based upon my interactions with others IRL, but we won't know until the totals come out. We have to operate from the assumption that Craner, Goodey, Quinn & Santos are underdogs. Be sure to vote and encourage others to as well!

      Delete
    2. The only place I hear anyone talking about the BOG election is on this blog. No one around my firm is discussing it, I don't read about it in the newspaper, etc. If people aren't reading this blog, they are not likely to be super involved and, I think, they will likely vote incumbent. While I voted to oust the incumbents, I won't be surprised if they win in a landslide.

      Delete
  7. I just voted for the ANTI-AUDIT Caucus: Craner, Quin, Santos & Goodey!

    Please, Craner, Quin, Santos & Goodey, when you are elected, (1) start holding annual meetings here in Nevada; (2) oppose carpetbagger, non-Nevada attorney Dan Hamilton's attempt to water down admissions standards and introduce the UBE; and (3) increase transparency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This raises a great question--why is the dean of the law school included as an ex-officio member of the board of governors?

      Delete
  8. Also, it appears that SBB Advertising Committee is taking the position that social media adverts =/= "a website." So you know that Facebook Ad you want to run for $30? Yeah, they want to charge you $100 to review it first. No indication of whether this includes "boosted" posts. What this means is that Google Ads and Craigslist Ads are likely in their targeting radar. What a shitshow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is really confusing. But it is hard to see where under any reasonable measure Google would be considered "social media." Facebook and Twitter have freestanding apps that don't necessarily draw content from a website. But google ads have a url i.e. are a website. Craigslist you can post an ad which is really also just a url/website and it is free, so that's even further removed.

      Delete
    2. 9:36am is right it is super confusing. Craigslist isn't free anymore as they charge $5.00 to advertise under services for each post so I think that places it under the "advertisements disseminated for something of value" part of the rule.

      Delete
  9. I spoke with Shafer, who was advised the bio was to be a bio. I know he is against trust account audits and for transparency in BOG work, bringing the Convention back to Nevada and for being an advocate for the actual practitioners.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Have Shafer get on here and make a public statement about his positions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or, he could send a supplemental email out to voters.

      Delete
  11. I voted. No current board members got my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why is the voting for BOG open for a whole month? This could be done in a day. Typical of current administration, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This election for the BOG is a first step. I voted out each and every incumbent. The next President has already been determined--it is Richard Pocker. We will need to replace each and every incumbent. The BOG needs to represent the issues of all its members not just the 200 who attend the annual meeting. I wonder if there is a provision to recall the current members, the President, President Elect and the other officers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And 86 Kim Farmer?

      Delete
    2. Do you recall when at least three former Bar employees sued the Bar due to alleged misconduct on the part of Kim Farmer? What happened to those lawsuits and did our Bar dues go toward settlements?

      Delete
    3. Your bar dues went to defense. Your bar dues went to resolution of the action.

      Delete
  14. How many of you actually think/believe that the BOG election is or will be honest and/or above board? What if anything is in place to guarantee that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a little too tin foil hat for my tastes. Go watch InfoWars.

      Delete
    2. I think the question is a reflection of the plethora of BOG opinions voiced here daily.

      Delete
  15. Maybe I run in different circles. Or maybe the same person is posting all of these comments. I've mostly heard of people voting for the incumbents. I plan to do so as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can we please stop with the same person who keeps posting the same comments. It is getting moldy. People are voting out Bogs.

      Delete
    2. 12:19-- Why? Name some things that the present incumbents have accomplished to make the SBN better.

      Delete
    3. 12:19 other than people seeking to change things---who talks about BoG elections?

      Delete
    4. Why vote for incumbents? The audit BS alone is enough to get them voted out. The Bar did nothing for years over Graham and then when that blew up in their faces they want to stick us with random audits? Vote them all out. We need a BOG that actual serves the members - not their own individual political desires.

      Delete
    5. 12:19 here. For the record, I'm all for the random audits. Seems to work out well in North Carolina. For example, random audit in first quarter of 2012 found 67% of the audits were problematic, and that improved the following years.

      People were talking about BOG election today because of the email that went out. Talked with at least 30 people who were inclined to vote for incumbents. You do you, and I'll do me. Not even going to try changing people's mind on an anonymous blog. We'll just see when the results come out.

      Delete
    6. The same people who voted for the incumbents will vote for them again. Whether they are voted out depends on how many people who didn't previously vote participate this time. It's impossible to know that number from anonymous comments on a blog. I don't even know what normal turnout is. Does anyone know those stats? Does even 20% of membership normally participate in these elections? This is why it is so critical to vote.

      Delete
    7. You've surveyed 30 people about who they're going to vote for in the BOG election? Puhlease.

      Delete
    8. 12:19 again. Survey? No. I work in a large firm and ran into 5 other attorneys. BOG election was watercooler talk. Couldn't care less who they plan to vote for. Just sharing what I heard. Shouldn't affect anyone else's vote. Not sure why 3:39 is getting so riled up about who I talked to. Who gives a shit how many people I spoke with? Vote for whoever you want, and let the results speak for themselves.

      Delete
    9. 3:39 here. Not riled up 12:19/3:46, I just wanted you to know that we know you're full of shit.

      Delete
    10. 4:00/Craner/Goodey/Coffing/Quinn/Santos/Shafer, good to know that you speak for the blog. Good luck with the election.

      Delete
  16. Off topic - but I have a question. Can anyone tell me why a plaintiff's attorney would want to take the deposition of a claims handler or adjuster? Just curious regarding the strategy. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bad faith claim?

      Delete
    2. Bad faith. Plaintiff is seeing if the unofficial policies of the company and claims adjuster do not match with the insurance policy.

      Delete
  17. Vote for change, Santos, Goodey, Craner and Quin. Boycott Solo!

    ReplyDelete
  18. just voted - zero incumbants

    ReplyDelete
  19. ruh roh? https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/las-vegas-lawyer-who-defends-dui-cases-charged-with-dui/

    ReplyDelete
  20. This Blog is Dead! j/k

    ReplyDelete
  21. Allstate just informed my office that it is denying my client's claim entirely because they were treated in part by providers who are subject to a civil RICO case commenced by Allstate. I am sending a letter memorializing this in an effort to truly "pop the limits." Specials are about $23k on a $15k policy (there are first party benefits available). Do you guys think I need to do anything else? The fact that this carrier is not paying any money on a claim because of some treatment by a provider who is on their "shit list" indeed constitutes bad faith, right?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes you need to do more likely. Talk with someone who does PI everyday and more importantly understands bad faith.

      Delete
    2. Join the NJA too. Great list serve where you can get answers and actually know who is giving advice.

      Delete
    3. Compliments of Mike Mills' Nevada Coverage Law blog:
      Nevada Supreme Court case of Torres v. Nev. Direct Ins. Co., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 54, 353 P.3d 1203 (July 30, 2015)

      http://nevadacoveragelaw.com/auto-insurance-company-avoid-paying-minimum-liability-limits-defendants-fail-cooperate/

      Which led to a bad faith claim: http://nevadacoveragelaw.com/thirdparty-bad-faith-claim-created-nevadas-absolute-liability-statute/

      For the links, visit www.NevadaCoverageLaw.com and search on Torres

      Delete
  22. I understand that there was a request for more information regarding my position. I would like to see the State Bar be more transparent, more responsive to the needs of the community it serves, and promote rational and reasonable governance. I would like to see a return to more effective practices. I will review and oppose arbitrary and capricious rules, such as random trust account audits, and a more effective education based approach. I will promote a more responsive, effective and saner approach to attorney discipline. I will promote efficiency with the budget of the State Bar, reviewing programs which do not generate substantial value for the state bar membership, including holding the Bar Convention in Nevada.

    If elected, here are plans I would like to pursue.
    1) Increase Transparency
    a. Provide Agendas via email and on website far in advance of actual meetings.
    b. Allow for open meetings and online feedback
    c. Broadcast meetings via internet feed
    d. Disclosure of Spending and Budgets of State Bar, including executive compensation
    e. Regular meetings of the Bar in General, including roundtables between governors and members of the State Bar to bring increased and improved ideas.
    f. More communication of programs and ADKTs, including specific communication on rule changes and analysis of the potential impact of these changes.
    2) Return Focus of State Bar to Improving the Practice to Members
    a. Return State Bar Convention to Nevada
    b. Oppose implementation of uniform bar examination, lobby for raised standards for admission.
    c. Substantially Narrow exemptions to practice for Non-Nevada licensed attorneys
    d. Expand service on boards and committees by Promoting opportunities to serve on to the beyond the current group of people who are getting involved.
    3) Promote rational and reasonable governance.
    a. Oppose Mandatory or Random Trust Account Audits, but develop reference resources and voluntary education. While the Supreme Court denied the first petition, the issue is not dead.
    b. Overhaul of discipline process at Office of Bar Counsel to
    i. Promote corrective and rehabilitative model and not punitive model
    ii. Encourage people to cooperate with a corrective and preventative process rather than a punitive one. We should not punish people more for coming to the State Bar for assistance. By so doing potential large offenders could be corrected early on. The standard is to protect the public, not punish, and by allowing arbitrary and capricious discipline there is no incentive to self-report or correct.
    iii. Engage the OBC in more preventative practices to assist attorneys in avoiding, preventing and fixing errors, including having the OBC more involved with CLE/LRE.
    iv. Return uniformity to discipline, with an emphasis on cases of harm to clients and the public.
    c. Audit of Bar Programs to Determine which Programs deliver actual value to the bar membership, and eliminate high cost low return programs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for running Jay! And for chiming in!

      Delete
    2. I guess I’m buying the shoulder to the wheel thing now

      Delete
    3. Thank you for this outline. I'd love to hear from other BOG candidates but from this you have one of my four votes. Thank you for running.

      Delete
    4. This is an excellent platform! Hope you win hands down. Thank you for sharing it.

      Delete