Friday, October 12, 2018

Efficient Use Of Time


  • Don't forget that tonight is the 22nd Annual CPK Open House/Party. You're all invited! 501 S. 8th St., 5 pm - 11 pm.
  • According to the CLIO 2018 Legal Trends report, lawyers only spend about 30% of their day on billable hours.  [Law360- sub. req'd]
  • Member of the State Bar of Nevada Board of Governors Andrew Craner posted the following in the comments yesterday:
The Supreme Court of Nevada issued its Order in ADKT 0534 denying the Board of Governors' Petition to mandate professional liability insurance for all Nevada attorneys. I am very pleased by the Court's ruling and thank everyone who submitted comments to the Court on this issue. 

The Nevada Board of Continuing Legal Education recently resubmitted its Request to the Supreme Court under ADKT 0499 that would amend the current CLE rules and regulations regarding the recently-imposed fees upon attorneys and providers for individual programs. Please be reminded that the CLE Board is separate and apart from the SBN Board of Governors.  
My biggest concern is the CLE Board's proposed virtual elimination of the fee exemptions it granted to the SBN, local bar associations, and non-profit providers. I ask that you please review the CLE Board's Request and submit comments to the Supreme Court in opposition to the CLE Board's Request. With your support, I am hopeful that members of our bar can once again convince the Supreme Court to deny another unsuitable amendment to our rules that, in my opinion, hurts and does not benefit our profession. Thank you for your kind consideration and assistance.

18 comments:

  1. Concerning the report that concludes that lawyers spend only 30% of their day on billable hours,my anecdotal experience with Vegas attorneys is dramatically different.

    I know of attorneys who spend 280% of their day on billable hours.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm very thankful the NV Supreme Court rejected the mandatory insurance requirement. Thanks to everyone who took the time to submit comments in opposition.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why in the world do we have a CLE board that is seperate from the SBN?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well supposedly, the board exists to create a semblance of separation because someone decided it might be unseemly if not a straight-up conflict of interest for the same profit-motivated organization that forces members to buy 13 annual hours of mandatory CLE and that also sells the stuff -- is at the same time accrediting and evaluating the academic worthiness of third-party competing products.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What is the conflict? Accreditation is not "selling" It seems to me that the CLE is simply another level of fees that are inefficent and redundant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You don't think there's an inherent conflict when the entity tasked with regulating what CLEs are allowed are also selling CLEs? There's no potential to use their regulatory authority to exclude competitors? If you gave Wal-Mart veto authority over the location of Targets, you don't think they'd use that to their own advantage?

      Delete
  6. I kind of have mixed feelings about the insurance issue. I agree that it should not be mandated. But I have a low opinion of full-time practitioners, particularly those practicing in areas where the stakes are real high and errors are more likely and errors tend to be real serious, who are too cheap and too unconcerned to carry it.

    If someone is part-time, or semi-retired, or practicing in one of the lower risk type areas, where perhaps a lot is usually not at stake, I guess I understand it. But, for example, if someone is a full-time practitioner who, let's say, holds himself out as someone who can litigate significant personal injury cases, or handle a significant piece of commercial litigation(or many other applicable examples) I think that such person is cheap, stupid, and not sufficiently concerned about serious consequences to himself an his client, if he does not carry such insurance.

    And if it's a case where someone has been practicing for years and insists they still can't afford such insurance, then they should probably not accept that involved, intense, challenging case because they probably don't have the success level, ability or work-ethic to do a decent job on it.

    These rates may be getter higher, but they are nothing compared to what physicians are required to carry, yet sometimes the damage(as to lawyer malpractice vs. physician malpractice) is just as high, or higher in some cases.

    I carried insurance since the day I went out on my own, did not have two nickels to rub together, and it was difficult to pay for it in addition to all the other over-head. But I always maintained it because I felt it was too foolish and dangerous to try to practice without it. And that is not a sign of not having faith in my legal abilities. That is a sign of having at least half a brain--which I hope I have, but who knows.

    I know posters will think I am really harsh and really wrong, but, again, it's just an opinion. But please think about it for a minute. How intelligent is it to handle significant pieces of litigation, with all the risks, and do so without insurance, and create that great risk to one's self and one's client, and then merely justify that gross over-sight by saying "hey man, I can't afford it, and that's that."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is 11:52, and I mostly agree with you. I am a solo and I have always carried insurance, for exactly the reasons you state.

      But I still strongly oppose the bar making it mandatory, because I don't want the insurance companies to have that kind of leverage. Maybe would help the odd client, but I am not convinced it would be a huge boon to the public. But once the low-hanging fruit is gone, the insurers have zero reason not to jack up their rates and start making things more difficult for those of us who are trying to do things right.

      Regulation of a profession shouldn't allow a for-profit industry whose customer base is that profession to even have a finger in the regulation. Fox / henhouse, etc.

      Delete
    2. I agree with 8:07 100%

      Delete
  7. The debate is over. Move on.

    ReplyDelete
  8. So who's going to file the lawsuit to bust up SBN? Then we'd just be paying for Admissions, Discipline and CLE.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Please, God, how do I get off the Elissa Cadish mailing list? I have received ten campaign party invites all hosted by Eglet.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to turn in your license. The email list is from the State Bar.

      Delete
    2. So, my dear, you are an involuntary slob. You must go and vote how Egler wants you to vote.

      Delete
  10. Just because it's not mandatory doesn't mean you shouldn't have it -- and that you shouldn't refer to a lawyer/law firm that doesn't. I would not practice without malpractice insurance, and wouldn't refer to a lawyer who doesn't have it. That said, I don't think it's for the state bar to mandate it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder how many of the people bitching they shouldn't have to carry malpractice insurance/ can't afford to carry malpractice choose to carry other forms of voluntary insurance which serves to protect themselves from harm rather than their clients (e.g. comprehensive and collision coverage, uninsured motorists coverage on their automobiles; health insurance coverage; homeowners coverage beyond what is required by a lender; etc.).

      Seems the real issue may not be entirely the cost but something else as all of the other coverage(s) can be as costly yet they choose to purchase it despite it not being required.

      Delete