Monday, July 2, 2018

Sparklers


  • Second Judicial District Judge Jerome Polaha ordered the Washoe County School District to turn over documents related to bullying sought by the RGJ. [RGJ]
  • Judge Michael Villani vacated the death sentence for a 71-year old Vietnam Vet. [KTNV]
  • A California attorney for the husband of an October 1 victim says her client's wife might be alive, but for the (in)action of Metro. [Baltimore Post Examiner]
  • 40 under 40 alumni: Paola Armeni Androvandi. [Vegas Inc.]
  • Some cautionary tales about drinking while practicing law include one from Vegas. [Law.com]

28 comments:

  1. The link on drinking doesn't work. I hope it is not of Joe Caramagno. Addiction is horrible thing, so to make a spectacale of it would be sad.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is about Caramagno. However the purpose of the article is to spotlight your point which is that addiction is a horrible thing. The problem is that by dredging up stories from so long ago, recovery and moving on is impossible.

      https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2018/06/29/let-these-incidents-serve-as-a-cautionary-tale-about-practicing-law-while-drinking/

      Delete
    2. My thoughts and Prayers are with all concerned

      Delete
    3. "[I]t has also been well-documented that a significant percentage of lawyers struggle with alcoholism and/or substance abuse, depression, and other mental health concerns."

      "21 and 36 percent drink at levels consistent with an alcohol use disorder"

      This pretty much describes me. I like to believe I'm functional and functioning. It's a struggle. Comparing myself to other lawyers I know who are incredibly fucked up professionally & personally (e.g., addicted, depressed, crazy double-lives, mentally ill) gives me some comfort. The 21-36% range for disorder is probably closer to 36%.

      Very Respectfully Yours,

      Functional Lawyer

      Delete
    4. 10:57, the fact that you are examining this is a good sign. As you make your decisions, at least include thoughts about a different career/or focus. I wrote on here a couple weeks ago how I cut my pay to about 1/4 from couple hundred thousand to about 50K and truly and sincerely I have never been happier or more at peace in my career. Don't make mistake of thinking you are "tied" to anything, this is your life.

      Delete
  2. I don't know what the requirements or process is for an attorney to be included on the 40 under 40 list with that particular publication, so I will not speak directly to that.

    But I firmly believe that many of these attorney "best of" lists are largely determined by attorneys donating financially to the publication and organization. After all, many of these organizations and publications are certainly not publications or organizations centered around the Law, and therefore these entities are ill-equipped to analyze the factors which makes aa lawyer effective in his/her field of practice, and there is certainly no attempt to interviews others in the legal profession concerning the rated attorney's skill and reputation.

    And the on line ratings are no better. Attorneys who receive high on line ratings, in addition to there being the financial element like there is with the ratings by the publication or agencies discussed above, the technical acumen of those who create or monitor such info. on behalf the attorney is also critical--regular scrutiny and maintenance to make certain high ratings and positive reviews prevail, etc.

    This all means that when consumers who are searching on line for an attorney in a certain practice area, often the names of the worst and most negligent attorneys in that subject area pop up first, with high ratings attached.

    In other words, I call bull shit on all of it. Attorneys are free to advertise in any they want, but one thing has remained constant from the days of print advertising, through the days of television and radio advertising, and now on line advertising. That constant is that the best attorneys receive most of their cases through referrals and word of mouth. The best ones don't need to constantly monitor their internet presence, and they certainly don't pay organizations and publications to trumpet that they are among "the best."

    ReplyDelete
  3. When the 4th of July falls on a Wednesday (THE WORST!) what do you do? Take only Wednesday off? At my current job, we get Tuesday afternoon and all of Wednesday. Whenever the 4th falls on a Tuesday, we get Monday off and when it falls on a Thursday, we get Friday off. So Wednesday 4th sucks.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why not just take the whole week off? So many people are out of office this week on either side of it, nothing is going to happen--reminds me of week between Christmas and New Year. Might as well make it an official holiday.

      Delete
    2. A fair amount take 6/30-7/4 off, the others 7/4-7/8. Many take the whole week off.

      Delete
    3. I think I'd prefer the morning of the 5th off instead of the afternoon of the 3rd.

      Delete
  4. You are right about the "Best Of" lists. And if you pay enough, they will put you on the cover of a magazine and let you write the glowing article (about yourself) all by yourself. I have first hand experience. . . .

    ReplyDelete
  5. Read the article about Paola, makes you wanna vomit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I absolutely vomited. What a supercilious piece of garbage.

      Delete
    2. The article, right, not Paola?

      Delete
    3. Yes the article.

      Delete
  6. State Bar petitions Nevada Supreme Court to mandate professional liability insurance for lawyers in private practice. http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=46470

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How about mandating disclosure as to whether you have insurance and what the limits are. Include it in the fee agreement/retention letter along with all the other stuff you have to put in there and let the prospective client decide if it is important to them or not.

      Delete
    2. Didn't mandating malpractice insurance die on the vine? Apparently not. This is the time for folks to speak up against. I like the alternative about disclosure. The statistics and the arguments in favor are misleading and need to be refuted.

      Delete
    3. @12:50: The petition says that the survey found that to be a very unpopular option, I imagine because proponents of mandatory insurance thought it didn't go far enough, and many opponents tend to be answering from a libertarian "I shouldn't have to do any of this" standpoint.

      Personally I think insurance should be mandatory, but only if your firm has a large enough revenue that you're not likely to be able to cover payouts yourself. "Mandatory insurance for everyone" seems like it would screw over the little guys. And what about LACSN/NLS/etc.? Do they already have malpractice insurance? If not, this seems like it would be a huge burden on them.

      Delete
    4. LACSN has coverage which applies to attorneys who take pro bono cases. I am semi-retired and take a few cases to help people. I would go inactive if insurance was mandatory

      Delete
    5. Can someone post the actual petition? The link is to the case info but no petition. Thanks

      Delete
    6. Everyone should have insurance. You have it to drive a car. We disclose in our fee agreement that we have it and the amount.

      Delete
    7. For a copy of sayonara Gene Leverty's parting shot to the keister, i.e., the mandatory malpractice insurance draft petition he signed and filed for the BOG, go to Appendix D on the attached link to the BOG Meeting Minutes of the Washington State Bar Mandatory Malpractice Insurance Task Force at https://bit.ly/2lNKNn5

      The governing board clowns in Nevada aren't the only officious intermeddlers looking at this. The Washington Bar is eager to piss off its members --- again. Oregon lawyers have been getting reamed for years to the tune of a mandatory $3500 per year for lousy 300k/300k bare minimum coverage. And Idaho just went to a mandatory open market purchase mandate effective 1-1-2018 by a vote of 51-49 percent of Idaho lawyers.

      Interestingly, pp. 242-301 of the Minutes Appendix features analysis and member comments from the SBN's Professional Liability Insurance Taskforce Survey. Ironic but hardly surprising that you get this information from a third party and not from the non-transparent, mushroom-feeding SBN.

      Read the comments. The overwhelming majority are negative and against mandatory malpractice insurance. The BOG, however, could give a good rip about what the members think.

      Some of the member comments wisely note that since malpractice insurance only covers inadvertent or negligent acts, i.e., errors and omissions and not intentional acts like trust defalcation, it would have provided NO RECOVERY for the victims of Robert Graham.

      Delete
    8. 5:37 PM, please give yourself a pat on the back. Just don't force your smug self satisfied airs on the rest of us.

      Delete
    9. 2:41,

      Open up the case information page. Find the line that says "Petition". To the far right, there is a link to the document itself. Read it for yourself, and let the hate flow through you.

      Delete
    10. A whole 3500 a year. Cheap bastards.

      Delete
  7. Very good idea.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I suspect that the receptionist or secretary may object to the disclosure tattoo.. just saying..

    ReplyDelete