Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Judicial Election Primer 2018- District Court Department 18- Bailus v. Holthus

The Department 18 race features Judge Mark Bailus and Mary Kay Holthus

This is your opportunity to weigh in and let your fellow lawyers and community members know why they should pick one over the other. Please keep your comments informative and professional. This is not a thread for personal attacks, but rather a chance to explain why someone should be elected.

Who is your choice for this spot on the bench?

32 comments:

  1. I like Mary Kay, but her heart is not in this race. Mark has been pretty descent on the bench so far.

    ReplyDelete
  2. He is also working hard for his election bid - he clearly takes this seriously. He's a little too tentative from the bench, but that is probably just because he is new. I'll vote to retain him.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I will vote for the non Dave Thomas candidate on this one, and the other elections. I don't trust politicians affiliated with him.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I like Mark personally. I thought his broad based experience would be good on the Bench. He has been an unmitigatable disaster. He has fallen for what so many others who join the bench fall which is just mailing it in as a Judge, as if this is a fun way to collect retirement benefits. His rulings are beyond tentative; they are lazy, uninformed and clearly reversible. It is one thing for a judge to act unfamiliar with the issues from the Bench; he acts like he really does not care. Not capricious but certainly arbitrary.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems like he gets half of everything right. https://www.ournevadajudges.com/judges/mark-b-bailus/cases

      Delete
  5. I have to agree with 9:34 a.m. As far as preemptory challenges, he is now one of my top choice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I've noticed that Bailus's campaign pictures tone down his pompadour hair considerably. He still rocks the bouffant on the bench, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. "He has been an unmitigatable disaster." I could not disagree more. I find his ruling to be informative, founded in law, and fair. However, it may from practice area to practice area. (I am a Plaintiff's attorney).

    ReplyDelete
  8. I always find it humorous when anonymous bloggers take pot-shots at judges (fill-in the blank name). These bloggers seem to think the position is the easiest job in the world, with the decision to any issue being obvious with only one possible solution.

    Consider, every case by definition is of arguable merit on both sides of the issue before the court (if it isn't then one of the sides, if an attorney, is committing a violation of their duties of professional responsibilities). Add to that, in more cases than not, the party's pleadings are grossly inadequate. They omit or misrepresent necessary facts relevant to the issue. They submit regurgitated, poorly assembled, cut and paste points and authorities which may not not actually address the issue before the court. The points and authorities are not relevant to the issue but rather, are merely, scandalous salacious material simple designed to embarrass the opposing side.

    Finally, add to all that, a crushing caseload for the judge to review and decide. How many attorneys have active caseloads anywhere near the size of any of the active judges? The job may seem easy to the attorney who has an intimate knowledge of the individual case involved and a smaller number of cases that they are responsible for.

    Just some food for thought...

    ReplyDelete
  9. To:11:22. Very true.

    I believe before someone weighs in on a judge's performance they should some real history before the judge, such as at least half a dozen appearances(preferably at least a dozen) and have received both winning as well as adverse decisions from such judge, and can offer some degree of specificity of the judge's relative strengths and weaknesses.

    But we often don't hear that on this blog. Instead, we are often treated to anonymous cry babies(yes, I'm also posting anonymously)bitching about losing an isolated motion before the judge. No details of the motion are offered. Perhaps the blogger deserved to lose the motion. We can never know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have had about half a dozen appearances before Bailus. I have lost each time (and the Court of Appeals reversed him on a huge case). I find him to be well-prepared and to have read the briefs. He allows ample oral argument to flesh out the issues. However, in each instance, his decisions were not based on existing law. I can say that for sure on the one case, because he was reversed on appeal. His decisions just do not make sense. He also suffers from the same problem Judge Bare has, which is that the last person arguing usually wins (i.e. they are easily swayed and the decisions are rarely made on the law or facts; instead they decision is made on the strength, length, or tenacity of oral argument).

      I will not vote to retain Bailus. I love the hair, but I can't stomach the judge!

      Delete
    2. 11:58 here. To: 1:58--now that's what I call a fair assessment. You offer a degree of details, plus something that would tend to lend a substantive degree of objective support for your positon(the appellate reversals on one or more cases).

      But too many others just gripe that a judge is bad because they were wrong to rule against the attorney, but nothing is really offered to help us evaluate the claim.

      Delete
    3. I have at least 15 appearances in front of Bailus (including trials). I have won more than I have lost in front of him. I have never found him to be prepared. He has not read the briefs on numerous occasions and is very easily swayed by arguments because it appears that arguments are really his only insight into the case (including cases where we have made multiple appearances and one might have thought his laziness was related to familiarity breeding contempt for the parties). I can honestly say I have won things that I had no basis winning. He is a nice guy and really was well connected in the community. He just is not a very good judge.

      Delete
    4. When you are referring to attorneys as cry babies, you are either the judge or the campaign manager.

      Delete
    5. Both 1:58 and 3:32 offer the type of useful, insightful commentary I wish we saw more of here rather than the usual unsupported he/she is horrible type comments.

      Delete
  10. For those who lost before a particular judge discussed often on this blog, keep the following in mind. You can blame your short-comings and failures on the judge if it helps you to rationalize your dreadful legal performances, but you lost because you deserved to lose. You researched very poorly, you briefed very poorly, and you argued very poorly, and you were dead wrong on the law.

    If you are upset if the judge seemed condescending and dismissive toward you, perhaps it is because she is amazed and repulsed that someone as inept as you is licensed to practice.

    Before anyone gets too upset with me, see if the batteries need to be changed in your Sarcasm Detection Barometer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Give me a break, judge. Stop treating people like shit.

      Delete
    2. Halverson treated me like shit when I appeared in front of her. I am not a shitty lawyer. Only a jerk judge would make this comment.

      Delete
    3. It is unprofessional for a judge to go off and personally insult an attorney who appears before them. There is case law on this. It involves Doug Smith.

      Delete
    4. To: 3:48. I also thought 12:13 was a judge. But when the post ended with an oblique reference to sarcasm, I no longer suspect it is. But the post does sum up how many judges probably view the issue.

      Delete
    5. I think 4:33 is right. It seems that 12:13 was, in part, attempting to see how closely people read. The post of 12:13 did harshly criticize attorneys who complain on this blog about how certain judges ruled on their case, and how it all must be the fault of the attorneys.

      But did we all kind of take the bait when we got pissed off and assumed that not only was 12:13 a judge but also assumed that 12:13 was serious?

      After all, at the end of the post it was pretty much telegraphed that it was a sarcastic lark. I guess we will never know for sure, unless 12:13 weighs in again.

      Delete
    6. Whether it was really a judge posting, or was just a joke, it does sum up what a lot of judges feel about being criticized.

      Some of them are reasonably humble and do not become indignant when attorneys tell them they disagree with the judge, but it seems most don't take it too well.

      Delete
    7. Pretty sure that 11:22, 11:58 and 12:13 is a Judge, a Judge who posts on here ALL the time. And if his caseload is so difficult to manage, maybe HE should be focused on that instead of focused on anonymous blogging.

      Delete
    8. Don't know if it's a judge. But at 12:13 the post ends by telegraphing that it was all over-the-top sarcasm.

      Delete
  11. In response to the above blogs, it's always hard to evaluate a judge based on what someone else says. One needs to appear before a judge, perhaps multiple times, to arrive at an informed opinion.

    Even if a good friend or respected colleague goes on about how a judge ruled incorrectly, unless we have examined all the filings and reviewed all of the hearings conducted, one should hesitate before jumping on the bandwagon, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  12. To:12:13. For good or bad, that's a favorite past time we as attorneys often indulge in--most commonly while in the corridors waiting for our case because the judge is behind on calendar. Sometimes there is an hour or two to kill if a judge is really backed up(these really lengthy delays are probably far more common in Family Court than at the RJC). Invariably, the discussion will turn to judges and other attorneys. And heaping praise on judges and opposing attorneys is usually not the focus. Usually, these discussions are dominated by how a judge really blew a ruling involving that attorney, or the abrasive, obstructive tactics of an opposing counsel.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Be careful what you wish for. Bailus may be problematic but what about his opponent Chief Deputy DA Mary Kay Holthus? Does she have any civil experience? Isn't she just about due to retire from the DA's Office and has time in (almost 30 years)? Will she make a good judge? She will give Bailus a run for his money. Female and DA makes a tough opponent. The Department does civil. Bailus could very well lose his seat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought Bailus took over some of the Criminal cases that were with Scotti previously?

      Delete
    2. That is true but isn't Judge Bailus doing mostly civil. The criticism is coming from the civil bar. The lady DA running against him has only done criminal by contrast. However, Judge Herndon came from the DA's Office as a criminal deputy and has been a good judge. Bailus has a lot of experience that is for sure.

      Delete
    3. Bailus is no longer doing criminal. He only has a civil docket as of July.

      Delete
  14. Judge Bailus in my last hearing before him did his own independent research to support his ruling in favor of the plaintiff. He freely admitted that the plaintiff did not cite any of the case law or make any of the arguments in the brief or at oral argument.

    ReplyDelete