Thursday, June 28, 2018

Cushiest Job In Town


  • Know the law regarding fireworks in Clark County. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • The City of Las Vegas has been discussing marijuana lounges. [Las Vegas Sun]
  • CCSD general counsel Carlos McDade is leaving his job to join the City of Henderson as its chief labor negotiator. [RJ]
  • Speaking of marijuana lounges and city jobs, one of our readers wants to know what you think is the cushiest lawyering gig in town? Is it a government job, a certain firm, something else?

33 comments:

  1. Cushiest lawyer gig in town? Happens to be a position for which they are presently hiring: Bar Counsel. Make up your own rules (even when its contrary to the rules that are actually written). Make up your own procedures (even when it is contrary to the actual rules of procedure which are published). No one will EVER investigate anything that you do. No one will ever cross you. You can give your former clients cushier deals for more serious conduct than other attorneys. And you can be effectively already retired and washed up and still cash the paychecks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Any idea as to what Bar Counsel makes? what was Stan getting?

      Delete
    2. The days of Stan are over. The question no one can answer is how much does Kim Farmer earn, and how much of "our" money is spent and on what by the Bar? If this is published anywhere, please share a link as my google skills must be lacking.

      Janeen should get the job. She's smart, experienced, fair minded and independent. Just a guess but "independent" doesn't fit Kim Farmer's or Jim Hardesty's wish list for the position. And, a woman in that position would probably not sit well with Kim. Sorry Janeen.

      I'm at a regional firm and my California colleagues are amazed by the goings on in the Nevada OBC and Bar. Does anyone else hear similar from out of state colleagues?



      Delete
    3. 12:38 I absolutely hear the same thing. I also am in a regional firm where I practice in other (neighboring) states also and happen to be on the Discipline Panel for another state. The Nevada OBC is a joke now amongst other State Bars, who are shaking their head at how off the reservation H&H (Hardesty and Hunterton) took our Bar.

      Delete
    4. Folks, I can't believe any other state bar cares what our bar is doing. I kind of care, although not nearly as much as some posters do, but I practice here. I practice at a large regional firm. Never has any colleague from any of our other offices in any other state asked a question about the OBC or the state bar. It literally doesn't come up. Similarly, I've never called anybody up to get the inside scoop on their state bar. Certainly, nobody has been "amazed" at any of "the goings on."

      Delete
    5. 3:48-- Some context is that they are amazed when it comes down as reciprocal discipline. So I watch California and Arizona cases to see how they are handling discipline. Attorneys in other states do watch what is going in Nevada. Maybe you don't but many do.

      Delete
  2. A good government job seems like it would be pretty cush - no billable hours, pension, defined vacation time, and when you clock out at 5 or 6 you are done. But, I think that all depends on the expectations of your boss.

    A good in-house job seems like it would be pretty cush - no billable hours, corporate perks, one client. On the other hand, it all depends on the expectations of your GC or CEO.

    Least cushy job - anything in private practice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Government attorney here. Happy to confirm that you are correct, it has been great for me. Add on that you're doing work that actually helps people and yeah, it's quite satisfying.

      Delete
    2. i had a government job. it was pretty cush. but the paycheck wasnt. turns out i would rather have a cush lifestyle with the money i make than a cush job

      Delete
    3. What about a job as a plaintiff's PI lawyer? Lots of people are telling me about how they have no billable hours, how they can take any vacation they want, and how they rake in the dough. Said it was pretty much stupid for anyone to not work as a plaintiff's lawyer.

      Delete
    4. Only problem is you have to deal with shit DI lawyers. It is tough dealing with dumb asses. However, it is not just as easy as sending a letter and they send a check either. Plus every small firm does PI so competition is fierce.

      Delete
  3. Clark County Civil DA might be amongst the cushiest jobs in town.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've always thought a job at SNWA seemed cush. 4 tens, pension, pretty interesting work?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was worried that I was not getting value for my bar dollars. And then today I got an email that put my mind at rest. Damn that is good value for my money. How much does Kim Farmer make again?

    The State Bar of Nevada has added Front Office Staff to its list of member benefit providers. Front Office Staff, a receptionist and answering service based in Reno, is handy for small and solo practices that may not have full-time receptionists. Instead of getting an answering machine or endless ringing, when clients and potential clients call, they will reach a human being who will take down their information in a courteous, friendly fashion and then pass messages along to the attorneys. In addition to performing receptionist duties, Front Office Staff also creates and manages calendar systems, and provides other helpful services. As a member benefit, active State Bar of Nevada members get 10 percent off of Front Office Staff's monthly fees, free setup and pay just $109 for the first month of unlimited calls. For more information or to sign up, visit Front Office Staff's website.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Just $109" the first month! Such a deal, another $1300 plus in annual expenses instead of voicemail. Where do I sign up? I wonder how much the SBN is getting kicked back with every Front Office Staff purchase?

      Delete
    2. Precisely why what the State Bar touts when blowing smoke is clearly medicinal grade in nature.

      Delete
    3. Wow, seems too good to be true that we have this amazing Front Office benefit. How did the bar negotiate this valuable benefit for us? There must be some really smart people at the bar. We are so lucky.

      @12:58 all of these "benefits" cost us something.

      @12:38 the lack of detail on what we paid for this benefit and the inability to find that information on-line is continued lack of transparency and accountability by the bar.

      Delete
    4. Conspiracies everywhere, even on something so simple as an answering service.

      Delete
    5. Simple minds see simple things, where complexity lies and the truth rings

      Delete
    6. Here's a link to 2017 Financials: https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/18-0315-BAR-AnnualReport2017_fnl-1.pdf

      This is only a summary report. It doesn't show compensation for anyone. Administration expense is stated as $1,554,400. There is no clear accounting detail on this report to explain Administration. The report notes under a heading of Administration that the State Bar of Nevada’s Facebook page had 968 “likes” and 1,023 “follows.” Twitter had 1,711 “followers” in 2017.

      The Annual Meeting expense is stated at $121,500. There are no notes with the report to clearly explain the expenses. There is income of $130,000 attributed to the Annual Meeting. There are no notes to clearly explain source of income.

      Discipline is listed as $2,247,500. Again, no clear detail with the report to explain.

      Complete transparency would answer any questions. A benefit to transparency is that bloggers would have no reason to go after the bar here on real or imagined expense issues. There would be nothing left to blog about except Boyd '13, judges, blog is dead, first, law firms, case law or hockey. Surely that would be better than the conspiracy de jour.

      Delete
    7. Has anyone asked the State Bar for the detail?

      Delete
    8. 12:38 and 1:13 both remember that Rob Graham wasn't transparent.

      Delete
    9. Perhaps Andrew Craner can let us know once his officially installed? Maybe we should just create a list of questions we want answers to?

      Delete
  6. Law professor is one of the (if not the) cushiest lawyer jobs in any town.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are law professors actually lawyers? Most of them have never actually practiced law. Some aren't even admitted in the state where they teach.

      Delete
    2. Yes, law professor seems pretty cush, but I think it's unfair to say most of them never actually practiced law. I went through Boyd a while back, and pretty much every one of my professors practiced for at least 3-5 years before making the switch to academia. Probably about half practiced for longer than that.

      That said, cush.

      Delete
    3. A lot of those law professors didn't "practice law" for 3-5 years, unless you mean doing doc review for big law for 3-5 years. Can you imagine if we had medical professors teaching heart surgery who only had 3-5 years of experience? The ABA, which accredits law schools, is captured by academic and administrator types, not practitioners. Unfortunately, this has created a system where people with little or no meaningful experience are training students. There should be a requirement that to teach in any given legal subject, one must have 10-15 years of experience. My CivPro professor (not adjunct) had been a litigator for 20 years. That's unusual. I feel very grateful to this day that I ended up in his section during my 1L year instead of the other section which was taught by a never-lawyer.

      Delete
    4. 2:20 here. I said 3-5 years as a general minimum. I agree that does not make you an expert at that point, but like I said, a good number of them practiced for much longer and many of those who didn't worked in a niche field where I would presume they actually got direct experience and not just doc review. But more than anything, I just think it's important to call people like 1:00 out when they spew unsubstantiated conclusions.

      Delete
    5. 1:00 here. Hey, 2:20, concerning your statement "I went through Boyd a while back, and pretty much every one of my professors practiced for at least 3-5 years before making the switch to academia. Probably about half practiced for longer than that."

      You should spot check your recollections beginning with Dean Hamilton's CV. https://bit.ly/2yO4UL8
      Let me know if you find any employment experience the Dean had as a lawyer. In fact, you don't have to go too far alphabetically into the faculty CVs, e.g., https://bit.ly/2IAXVF2
      and https://bit.ly/2Kuk118
      to see that law professor Paul Campos was right when he cited at "Legal Academia and the Blindness of the Elites, 37 HARV. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 179, (2014) at 180, “A 2003 study found that the average amount of experience in the practice of law among new hires at top twenty-five law schools, among those hires who had any such experience, was 1.4 years.” https://bit.ly/2IAIrAX

      Then again, Boyd isn't a top twenty-five law school so perhaps your assertions bear further scrutiny. Just the same, for more substantive analyses, see also, Cohen, Amy, "The Dangers of the Ivory Tower: The Obligation of Law Professors to Engage in the Practice of Law" (2004). Loyola Law Review, New Orleans, Vol. 50, p. 623, (2004) available at https://bit.ly/2KrOae5 and "Two rules for educating tomorrow’s lawyers" https://bit.ly/2tOV467 referencing the author's law review article to make the point that ". . . perhaps the most serious problem facing law schools is that their graduates are often ill equipped to practice law. Arguably, this is partly because of law schools’ hiring habits: most of the new professors picked for academia have very little or no legal practice experience."
      And finally see "Qualifications of Judges and Law Professors: A Telling Mismatch" at https://bit.ly/2MzIvmH
      for the proposition, "These days extensive practice experience is a disadvantage, not an asset, for the prospective law professor. It signals to faculty hiring committees a late interest in teaching and research, and a turn to academic work because of a disenchantment with the everyday work of lawyers."

      2:20, you're absolutely right that it's important to call people out when they spew unsubstantiated conclusions.

      Delete
    6. Thank you for bluebooking your blog post........

      Delete
    7. In Nevada, law professors are allowed to "waive" into the bar on motion. They then have the privilege to say the Nevada bar exam is too tough and grading needs to be loosened up. In California, law professors have to take the California Bar like everyone else. They can take the attorney's exam (no MBE) if admitted elsewhere for five years. Even Arizona put restrictions on law faculty who were waiving in and running amok with crazy lawsuits.

      Delete
  7. Cushie, skate judicial jobs might include JP or Muni., although that can vary depending on which municipalities we are dealing with.

    An acquaintance insists that Family Judge is a cushie job because he believes the subject matter is simple and requires far less preparation or analysis than a District Court gig at the RJC.

    First, a lot of Family Law practitioners would disagree with his assessment of the simplicity of the subject matter. Second, regardless of the difficulty of the subject matter, you would have to listen to those litigants all day long, and often the attorneys are also fully invested in the drama and sometimes even inflame it further.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. FL practitioner for 10 years then turned to business litigation. Family law itself is very complicated and underrated. I would compare it to most any other area of law. However, the procedural aspect of civil litigation is much more complicated. This may be in part that they simply do not enforce NRCP/EDCR at family court. You simply would not believe it. Once saw an opposition a month late with not even a comment from the Judge, FDFs routinely not filed, no attention in trials to rules of evidence, etc. FL lawyers on a daily basis misquote standards, burdens of proof, and definitions of legal concepts. Saw a Judge say once that there were no circumstances where he could not rule for joint physical custody as the law REQUIRED joint physical all the time (to be fair he was brand new but still). Short story: don't blame the law, blame the people.

      Delete