2017 Annual Airing Of Grievances

  • Law
“The tradition of Festivus begins with the Airing of Grievances. I got a lot of problems with you people! And now, you’re gonna hear about it.” –Frank Costanza


Technically, Festivus is on December 23, but since that’s Saturday, we are going to get the festivities started today!  Gather your family, friends, co-workers, enemies, judges, opposing counsel, etc. because it’s time for the Airing of Grievances

For some of you, this is what you were born to do–this is your moment to shine. Your gift of complaining is finally welcomed and wanted on this one occasion. This is your chance to (civilly- meaning work appropriate and slander free) whine and complain about your salary, your job, your boss, the courts, nepotism, the Board of Governors, bar counsel, UNLV Boyd Class of 2013, this blog, etc. It’s also your chance to provide some feedback about the way things are done in the Las Vegas legal community. Believe it or not, there are a lot of people who read this blog and see your comments and suggestions (including administrators, judges, and other lawyers). If you want a refresher on what types of things you were disappointed in or complained about last year, use the search box and enter “airing.”
105 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 4:26 pm

I got a lot of problems with you people! This new CLE "improvement" is some bullshit and is just going to make things worse, less efficient, and more expensive. Happy Festivus to all.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:06 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Yes, I love how the $25 per application fee and $5 per credit hour for attorneys are billed as a shift to a "provider supported" model in an effort to eliminate the $40 annual. This shiny new business model works out to be more expensive for attorneys.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 9:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Perhaps I am missing something in the bar's fuzzy math.

Previously, an attorney needed AT LEAST 13 hours per year in CLE credits and paid a flat rate of $40 per year. It mattered not if the attorney obtained 13 or 130 hours of credits during that year, they paid the same $40. The provider paid nothing for the privilege of sponsoring the session.

To the extent that the attorney attended more than the required 13 CLE hours, they could carry forward a limited number excess credits for 2 years (I think), but still had to pay the $40 for the year that the actual education was covered by excess hours (merely saved the cost of the actual class).

Under the new proposal, it is no longer a flat fee for the attorney. Assuming that the attorney does just the minimum required hours it will now be $65 (13 x $5) plus the actual cost of the classes. To the extent that they engage in additional education beyond the mere minimum, the price goes up from there. If you have an attorney that actually seeks to enhance their learning and understanding of the intricacies of some aspect in the law such that they obtain more education than than 37 hours in a year (13 for the current year + 20 general credits to carry forward + 4 ethic hours to carry forward [assuming they are not already carrying forward any previously obtained hours] they would now have to pay $185 in that year (plus the actual cost of the classes). To the extent they obtain even more than 37 units in a year (or are already carrying over excess credits from a prior year) they will still have to pay the $5 per credit fee for education that provides no benefit (other than personal knowledge and career development).

Additionally, the providers whom previously had to pay nothing (to the bar)for the ability to develop and host a class will now have to pay a "license" fee for the privilege. Of course it must be only the bar (and typical mindset of a certain political persuasion) to believe that the provider will pay that fee out of their own money rather than simply passing it along (with an appropriate mark-up) to the students attending the class.

Lets call a duck a duck. Regardless of what you call it, a fee or tax increase is still a fee or tax increase. You can put a swine in a nice dress and add lipstick for a trip to the Ball, but come midnight, she is still a pig…

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 11:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Here's the thing, IMO the CLE Board's 'new business model' intended as it is to steer lawyers away from not using unaccredited CLE providers smacks of a restraint of trade. This model inhibits free competition and limits consumer choices. The only way to avoid paying $5 per hour plus the $25 unaccredited provider fee is for the lawyer to take courses only from providers that have paid the CLE Board's new tariff.
In addition, buried in the court's administrative order is an amendment stating: "The state bar of Nevada and its recognized sections, Nevada county bar associations, and Nevada chapters of local and specialty bar associations are exempt from the per attorney credit hour fee, regardless of the format for which it is presented, if one of the following conditions are met: (a) proceeds from the CLE directly benefit legal aid providers located within the State of Nevada; or (b) the CLE credit is awarded to approved mentors in the Transitioning into Practice program; or (c) the course for which CLE approval is sought is of a duration not to exceed 1.5 hours and for which the registration fee does not exceed $75."
Who saw this coming? The ruling class is controlling the means of production and the output.

Andrew Craner
Guest
Andrew Craner
December 20, 2017 11:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The e-mail from the CLE Board has apparently created much confusion regarding the payment obligations of individual attorneys. The culprit appears to be the "INDIVIDUAL ATTORNEY" column that states "$25 Per Application" and "$5 Per Credit Paid By Attorney." My understanding is that this column refers to CLE programs put on by individual attorneys or law firms (as opposed to outside providers) that do not qualify for a fee exemption. In that case, the attorney/firm who puts on the CLE would be responsible for paying the $25 flat fee plus the additional $5 for each attendee. I understand that this column does NOT pertain to the attorney attendees and that all members of the SBN will still pay the flat $40 annual fee, regardless of the number of credits that we take each year. My understanding derives from the "$5 per attorney charges" to be paid by providers (Accredited and Non-Accredited") listed in the first two columns. However, if someone has a different understanding than I, please post a comment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 12:05 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Welcome to the shit show.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 12:28 am
Reply to  Anonymous

3:21 – The way it works is that unless the unaccredited CLE provider agrees to pay the $25 — which is unlikely since they already refused to pay the $500 yearly tariff — then it is up to the individual lawyer attendee who took the unaccredited course to not only pay $5 per hour but IN ADDITION pay the $25 unaccredited provider fee. In effect, the State Bar does not want you taking courses from unaccredited providers. If you do, then, you must pay extra for having the temerity to do so.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 12:37 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Here is my issue 4:28– isn't the tariff by course? So if I take a course from an accredited provider, but the specific course was not submitted to the NVCLE Board but is accredited in 27 other states, why jack up the fees?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 1:42 am
Reply to  Anonymous

4:37 – For purposes of Nevada's new CLE business plan, a course is accredited via two ways. It is one or the other. The provider either pays an annual fee of $500 or it pays $25 per course.
If a lawyer takes a course from an accredited provider, i.e., one that paid the annual fee, then the lawyer only pays the provider their course fee. Nothing extra is paid to the NV CLE Board.
If, on the other hand, the lawyer takes a course from a provider that has not paid the annual $500 fee, then that provider is deemed "unaccredited." There are then two either or options. The unaccredited provider either pays the $25 fee to accredit that single course or the individual lawyer pays the $25 fee to get her credit for that single course.
If the unaccredited provider pays, then the lawyer is only liable for the $5 per hour fee. If the unaccredited provider does not pay the $25 fee, then the lawyer has to pay the $25 plus the $5 per hour fee if she wants her course participation recognized by Nevada.
Whether or not the specific course has been "accredited in 27 other states" is irrelevant. Nevada wants its money. It's the new business plan. Either the provider pays to play or the lawyer does.
And remember, until the annual $40 CLE fee supposedly goes away, Nevada lawyers still have to pay that $40 fee in addition to the above surcharges.

Andrew Craner
Guest
Andrew Craner
December 21, 2017 2:50 am
Reply to  Anonymous

5:42- Thank you for an excellent summary and analysis. I believe the take-away is to give extra consideration to attending CLE programs offered by fee-exempt entities, the prerequisites for which are well-summarized by 3:04 PM. This should spare most of us the hassle of paying these added fees solely as attendees.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 4:54 pm

The Nevada Supreme Court and State Bar of Nevada simply have made a mockery of the attorney discipline system. There are cases (plural) in which the Office of Bar Counsel stipulated to discipline of suspensions of 18 months in one case and 24 months in 2 other cases. The 24 month suspensions became 48 months and 57 months respectively. The 18 month suspension became 54 months. There is a case in which an attorney met with Bar Counsel and agreed to a voluntary suspension; the Nevada Supreme Court refused to recognize the stipulation and self-suspension and did not count the self-suspension time, meaning the attorney's reliance on OBC was a waste of months of his time. There is the attorney who told OBC that the attorney was suffering from mental health issues and OBC proceeded with the Hearing and told the Panel that the attorney was non-responsive.

It may seem like a dead horse to those who have not (yet) had OBC come after them. However this is the reason that anyone involved in attorney discipline cases would tell you that the present regime at the OBC and Nevada Supreme Court are Star Chamber-level frightening. Nothing that attorneys are told by OBC gets honored or can be trusted. A system in which the Bar and Court cannot be trusted is antithetical to justice.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The problem does not lie with Bar Counsel but with who is running the Bar. The BOG is oblivious to what is going on and that paralegals and people with no legal experience run the show.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:11 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Agree and disagree. The paralegals and investigators are absolutely running the show on case by case. However Stan is a HUGE problem because he was led to believe that he was to turn OBC into Operation Strike Force. This fish is rotting from the head: Hardesty and Hunterton.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Rot stinks. Do these "paralegals" have an online certificate from the Univ. of Bogs?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

These Paralegals include Tiffany Bradley who literally runs the cases and corresponds ex parte with her Panels and Dawn Meeks, who testified in a case to facts allegedly stated by a Complainant which were directly contrary to what the Complainant actually stated. The OBC is just as dirty, if not dirtier, than than the USAO.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:05 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This is our rot and we are proud of it….

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:13 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Where is the BOG Hannukah party?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:37 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

At Aaron Ford's campaign party.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 9:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

At the risk of re-igniting the fire.. I'll agree that there has been a marked change in the level of discipline imposed for offenses, but that in and of itself does not mean that the current regime is wrong are at fault for something nefarious.

Using the examples listed above, it may be entirely true that the attorney and OBC stipulated to a form of punishment which in the past would have been accepted by the Supreme Court. What isn't true is that the Supreme Court is bound by the stipulation. Rather, it is a recommendation by OBC (non-opposition by the attorney) in how the case should be resolved.

The problem as I see it is more perception and evolving expectations. The stipulation was negotiated through the lens of history, using prior cases as a guide. The current case, however, will be resolved using the lens of the present rather than the lens of history.

The prior 18-24 month suspension cases, if before the current Supreme Court wouldn't have passed muster any more than the cases that saw the negotiated recommendations ignored by the Supreme Court. I believe that the Supreme Court in it's resolution of the negotiated resolutions is merely trying to reset the expectations of both the accused and OBC so that future negotiations result in recommendations within the ballpark of what the current Supreme Court believes is the true value of the case. I suspect once the parties begin negotiating consequences more in line with where the justice value a case (even at the lower end), you will again begin to see the stipulations approved and adopted.

To put this phenomenon into perspective we need only look at the larger society and the issue of sexual harassment in particular. The concept of the "casting couch" is nothing new to Hollywood, it's been around for at least 60 years (if not longer). In the past, those in power openly used that power with impunity through concept of the "casting couch" and other means. In today's world, a similar person engaging in exactly the same conduct would be handed their head along with the termination of their career.

It's not that the rules have changed and the current person is being treated unfairly, rather the conduct was just as wrong then as it is today but society has revisited the value it places on that same misconduct and is therefore imposing greater consequences for it.

All that being said, I do believe that if the Supreme Court elects to ignore the negotiated resolution, the parties should be allowed to withdraw from the agreement and the status quo, as existing prior to the agreement should be restored. Anything that OBC learned from the agreement that was not otherwise discovered of discoverable should be excluded and able to be used against the attorney (much like a proffer).

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 10:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Your analysis that "the prior 18-24 month suspension cases, if before the current Supreme Court wouldn't have passed muster any more than the cases that saw the negotiated recommendations ignored by the Supreme Court" shows the problem. Lets look at the most obvious example. Mark Lobello pled guilty to a tax fraud case. He was given and approved for a 24 month suspension. His brother Charles Lobello pleads guilty to a tax fraud charge after being told that it would be a 24 month suspension. He pled guilty relying upon the representation that it would be a 24 month suspension. Charles was given a 48 month suspension. "Society" has not revisited anything. Hardesty and now Hunterton have moved the goalposts in the middle of the game. There was no change of law. No change of rule. There is 20+ years of precedent for the former; there is no indication for the latter being appropriate. Remember that attorney discipline is not supposed to be "punishment"; it is supposed to be to protect the public and uphold the integrity of the system of justice. The Lobellos were punished through the criminal justice system. How would anyone look at these cases and say that the public needs twice greater protection from the latter than the former? How would the public look at a system where the Court can arbitrarily go up without any references or citations to any standards? For some reason we accept treating attorneys worse because they are attorneys.

If the Nevada Supreme Court wants to reset the expectations of both the accused and OBC so that future negotiations result in recommendations within the ballpark of what the current Supreme Court believes is the true value of the case, do it with cases in which parties have not already moved forward in reliance upon 30 years of precedent. The other issue is that the Nevada Supreme Court claims to be relying upon the "ABA Standards"; however the ABA Standards are based upon suspensions never being longer than 3 years, which the Nevada Supreme Court has stated it is ignoring. Finally the Nevada Supreme Court is entirely ignoring mitigation.

The result is that no attorney should trust ANYTHING negotiated with the OBC. No attorney should bother themselves with working with OBC or mitigating. The OBC and NSC have set the table for attorneys to trust and work with Bar less, not more.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 11:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

If the OBC told an attorney that she or he could mitigate by suspending themselves from practice and cooperating with the OBC, and then the Nevada Supreme Court not only did not give credit for the mitigation but actually refused to honor the voluntary suspension of practicing with the OBC, then honestly I have interest in being a member of this State Bar any longer because the entire system is so broken. Who would want to pay a percentage of their annual income to an organization that is as corrupt as our Bar and Courts are?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:11 pm

My penis is still too small.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Not a problem so long as you are a woman.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 6:38 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Mine is not.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 9:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Get better glasses..

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 3:42 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Find a woman with small hands and a small vagina.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:17 pm

Kirstin Lobato granted a new trial.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Finally.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:46 pm
Reply to  Anonymous
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:55 pm

Mistrial for Bundy. Next week she'll say whether it's with prejudice.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Donald Trump is President and the Bundy's are going to get away Scot free for leading TWO ARMED STANDOFFS against the government of the United States.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 6:07 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Just a reminder: Obama was the President when the Bundys were acquitted in Oregon.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 6:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Has nothing to do with who is President. Has to do with prosecutorial misconduct which has been allowed to occur in this U.S. Attorney's office for decades.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 6:15 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I have completely reversed on this issue. The dangers of lawlessness by some Mormon cattle ranchers are now outweighed by the dangers of a lawless and conscience-less USAO. I would be willing to let the Bundys walk after 2+ years in jail if it meant large scale firings and changes at the USAO. Enough is enough of this.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 6:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

10:14– you hit the nail on the head. Our US Attorney's Office has been allowed for decades to just run roughshod over the rights of litigants. Not sure if it is because our judiciary is afraid that unless they allow it that they will get "Harry Claiborned" but it has to stop.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:27 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

If the current trial were the first one, I would say there's probably discretion to permit a retrial so long as there's no evidence the Brady violations were made with the intent of causing a mistrial. But it would probably be an abuse of discretion not to dismiss the indictment in this case even without evidence of intent to cause a mistrial, because the USAO has already had not only the current trial but also a previous full trial all the way to a hung jury *with the Brady violations yet undiscovered*. Under those circumstances, no way they should get another bite at the apple.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Navarro declared in her Order today that the violations were "willful." How do you have willful, repeated prosecutorial misconduct and not dismiss the case?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I don't follow the USAO as much as most of you, but I'm wondering what is it about this Bundy case that has brought these issues to light? It sounds like this has been a problem for a while. Why is the Bundy case bringing it to a head?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:30 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Honest answer: because the Bundys are just crazy enough to gamble with their lives. Any defendant with an ounce of common sense when staring down the barrel of federal guns blinks. Takes a "deal." The Bundys have served 2 years; if the charges are dismissed, they will never get those 2 years back. If it were any of us, even if acquitted, your professional life is ruined with all of the press that would have been written and you would have been bankrupted. The Bundys have an army of followers who are wrong 99% of the time; however 1% of the time they are right and show legitimate government misconduct.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 10:07 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

When its crooks (the Bundy crowd) vs. crooks (the US Attorneys Office), the public is the biggest loser. I agree with the dismissal, but also wish that the Clark County DA would step in and prosecute the creeps. This is embarrassing.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 3:15 am
Reply to  Anonymous

The AUSAs office faced a similar situation a few years ago when one of the Hell's Angel's trials was dismissed for Brady violations. Sounds like it's time to clean house over there.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 5:59 pm

This is beginning to become evergreen, but Justice Hardesty. I like you, but feel so betrayed by how the court has acted after giving us the hard sell on the court of appeals. The COA is not creating published decisions and the supreme court is not writing more opinions. Was it an outright lie? Did you miscalculate?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 6:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

It was an outright lie. Hardesty is a tough guy, willing to bully for what he wants and not accountable to anyone ever.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 6:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

To:9:59. It might appear that we were, on some level, sold a bill-of-goods as to the COA.

We were told it would greatly expedite the decision-making process, would save parties huge money on appeals, and the court's creation would have very little taxpayer impact beyond judicial and staff salaries because they would use existing offices and chambers(rather than a new, expensive structure being needed).

As to the first two(expediting the decision-making process and saving money) this has not occurred largely because no expedited process has been created for appeals. With the push down method, you never know whether the NSC or COA will hear your matter, so you must satisfy the identical laborious and expensive requirements that you always have.

As for the third reason(no real tax payer impact) it is was only a matter of time before it was represented that the COA has outgrown their environs and need new digs. And the average person doesn't remember, if they ever knew in the first place,that the promise was made that it would have no real financial impact. So when such promises are made, people's memories are so short(particularly on a topic like this which has minimal interest to the average resident), that all you need do is wait a few years and then request more funding.

In general, though, I'm still a supporter of the COA creation although, yes, we are still in growing pains and have not yet seen it really help expedite matters(hopefully that will change). And I may not necessarily be completely thrilled with the current composition of the court. Plus, now it has been made clear that their decisions not only cannot be cited as authority in any sense, but apparently they cannot be cited or referred to for any purposes. For example, even if you don't cite it as actual authority, you now apparently can't even say or write anything like "the Nevada courts are increasingly grappling with this issue, and in fact our COA recently issued a decision dealing with this precise matter"

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Did you realize that the CoA has its own case management system which has ZERO cases in it because we are using a push-down method? Go ahead– search the CoA Case Management system to see that we have an entirely worthless and empty system running.

https://nvcourts.gov/COAPortal/

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:39 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

10:20 here.

Yes, I was aware of that, and that represents part of the problem.

The push-down method can never lead to more expedited and less expensive appeals because, again, since the attorneys don't know which court will hear the case, all the same expensive requirements and laborious procedures must be followed.

There needs to be more clarity as to what type of case will be pushed down, plus a different, less intensive, and expedited procedure for the cases to be heard by the COA.

I can dream, can't I?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 6:16 am
Reply to  Anonymous

The NSC opinions are becoming stellar on corp governance. Judge Hardesty knocked it out of the park in Panametric Sound. Great economic benefit will result from corporations which make Nevada their domicile. A good statutory business judgment ruled combined with our highly competent high court should be a business magnet. Kudos to Justice Hardesty. We will out Delaware, Delaware.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:11 pm

I wish the billable hour would go away. Such a waste of time and practically requires fraud.

Unknown
Guest
Unknown
December 21, 2017 12:31 am
Reply to  Anonymous

What is a billable hour? How many of these do you have to do?

signed,

Dumb P.I. lawyer

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 3:18 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Agreed. Serious question…what do you do when you know there is someone in your office fraudulently billing and the partners reward this person with a large bonus, while turning a blind eye to what's really going on?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 3:47 am
Reply to  Anonymous

@7:18 PM

I remember going into the office one day on a Sunday and an associate who is no longer with my firm allegedly billed over 8 hours by 10am.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 6:12 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Why is he no longer with the firm? A lot of firms that rely on hourly billing would have promoted him on the spot and held him up as an example for the new, young associates to emulate.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 7:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I wish this sort of discussion would be the next big scandal over #metoo. Attorney billing fraud is rampant and disgusting. And I agree – most who overbill or flat fraudulently bill are rewarded. I suspect the billable hour accounts for most attorney burn out. I personally have raised specific examples of attorney billing fraud to higher ups only to be shut down and told to shut up. It's such a scam. Also – even more frustrating that the State Bar will do nothing. If any billing issue is brought to their attention they treat it like a billing dispute. It's a joke.

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
December 20, 2017 7:16 pm

All the Cadish/Silver stuff.

Happy Holidays, ya filthy animals.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:49 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

Obviously, you have the right to delete it all, but I kind of wonder why. It did not appear to focus too much on anything really derogatory or disrespectful about those two candidates. Most of the discussion, which seemed interesting and is apparently the type which should be supported by this blog, appeared to center around the massive undertaking with winning a state-wide race.

A couple times bloggers took issue and called each other clueless, but the discussion in general seemed like one of the better ones lately. First, the huge undertaking of a Supreme Court race. Secondly, the fact that the better lawyers usually lose judicial races to the inferior lawyer who is more politically connected.

Seems like an interesting discussion.

However, I realize, unlike some bloggers, that this is in no way censorship because it is your private blog and you are not a governmental entity.

However, what's wrong with deleting a stray short blog or two that includes name-calling from the thread, but leave the blogs which actually raise some respectful, worthwhile points on the issue?

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
December 20, 2017 7:22 pm

And personal attacks.

We're not doing that on here anymore.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:36 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

Censorship on this blog is on my list of grievances. I get it, but man, it's annoying. Make the blog great again.

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
December 20, 2017 7:46 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

Yeah, it is annoying.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:46 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

I did see any personal attacks. Someone just stated something about somebody being an undertaker. That is an honest living.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:47 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

Not

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:51 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

I get the part about removing personal attacks, but personal attacks can be removed while still allowing the blogs on the thread which include thoughtful, legitimate discussion.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:26 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

What happend to the discussion a few weeks ago about moving this to Reddit?

Unknown
Guest
Unknown
December 20, 2017 8:43 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

Someone created a subreddit. There were one or two posts. A couple of us commented. The person who runs this blog griped due to liability concerns for him/her if something defamatory were posted on the "Las Vegas Law Blog" subreddit. I haven't been back since, but still think a subreddit format would be far superior to a blogspot format.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:31 pm

OBC, COA, Robert Graham, no more free parking on the Strip, and my increasingly slowing metabolism.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:46 pm

Given that today is Festivus (Observed), I believe the Bundy mistrial qualifies as a FESTIVUS MIRACLE! Surely the Lord God hath delivered these righteous Bunkerville brethren from the grasp and firey darts of the adversary for a wise and noble purpose!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 7:48 pm

NSC candidate who is against the second amendment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Except that her answer was legally correct.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:11 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

It is correct. She is against the 2nd Amendment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 9:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

To hell with the second amendment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 11:28 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You sound like Cadish.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 4:59 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I heard Cadish is also hating on the 3rd Amendment! Does she even respect the Bill of Rights at all?! On further analysis, maybe the 2nd Amendment is the reason the 3rd Amendment has lost its mojo – did Cadish consider that? I've just sold myself on the 2nd Amendment. Either way, I'll probably vote for Cadish – she's better than most and has actual complex litigation experience.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 6:18 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I will say this for Cadish. She made the actual innocence ruling for Fred Steese. And it was the right call and 100% supported by the facts of the case, but it basically required her to rule that two other sitting judges mishandled the original case and committed Brady violations. I can think of plenty of judges who would have been worried about the political fallout, and would have punted so that they didn't have to make a decision implicating their colleagues.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:06 pm

The removal of the personal exemption. The practical elimination of the estate tax (not a whole lot of couples with 22 million in assets walking through my doors). The "fuck you" the tax bill gives to educated people, with the elimination of the student loan interest deduction. The "double fuck you" Trump gives to educated professionals, with the the legal profession (among others) being a disfavored trade when it comes to deducting pass-through income (like, say, my income from hanging out a shingle).

The "bend over and take it, you might enjoy it" attitude the State Bar has adopted regarding the fee-shifting of CLEs. The "bend over and take it, you will not enjoy this" attitude OBC has over penny-ante bullshit violations.

Avvo, and their constant pestering of me to sign up for advertising. (Oh, it's the 20th, and you're willing to waive the fee for December? How damn generous of you!) LRIS, from which nothing flows but a river of crap, courtesy of every receptionist who sends it there.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:18 pm

Mark Peplowski

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:25 pm

Who?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:26 pm

The Paul Powell commercials.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:39 pm

There is some serious discussion that Cadish is going to draw an opponent. The NRA is scared of her.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

where is this discussion?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 9:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Ask Heller

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 9:17 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I guess Mike Roberson is against the second amendment since he is supporting Cadish.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 11:18 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

So, if he supports someone that means he agrees with all their philosophies? Sounds like he's simply being politically practical. Makes sense to support her as she will, apparently, win as no prospective viable opponent have ever come forward.

Appears that she will probably be unopposed, or perhaps just draw token opposition.

Now, if hat is wrong and there is still time for a viable opponent to emerge, then perhaps Roberson would have been better served to hold off until candidate filing closes.If some solid conservative actually enters the race, he will now be in a tough position of either sticking with the far more liberal candidate who he endorsed, or shifting his endorsement which will always undercut someone's credibility.

People already dislike politicians, and they really dislike and distrust them if they change their support for people or policies based on shifting political winds and political expediency.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 5:53 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I will file on January 3. I will spend my inheritance if necessary. Should be fun.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 6:08 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Many people would support you if they know who you are.

Your qualifications and experience would be relatively unimportant, as you are now presenting people with an option.

How good an option I don't know, but by default perhaps the better option.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 4:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Someone told me the Coffing was going file against Cadish.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 5:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The fact that Coffing has thrown his hat in the ring a few times and hasn't had success yet makes me think I'd have no shot at becoming a judge. He seems to be smart and well-qualified. If he can't get in, then I'd have a snowball's chance in hell of making it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 5:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Good, Cadish's opponent has my endorsement, probably not worth much, but I have money I can give, and I will volunteer. You just made my Christmas. Bless you, whoever you are.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 9:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Announce on here when you file against Cadish, and where you are accepting donations. You have two nice, sizable donations from the attorneys of our law firm.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 11:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

To9:29: But consider that Coffing's previous attempts were for
appointments, not elections.

So, perhaps he didn't profile as to what category of applicant the Governor's inner circle were looking to fill the bench with when he previously applied.

But elections are an entirely different dynamic, and perhaps he has the ability to raise significant funds from the legal community and other sources, and attract important endorsements.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 11:07 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

He better be able to raise significant funds and attract significant endorsements if he is to be viable. Usually, the more legally skilled and experienced candidate loses to the better, and more connected, politician.

So, hopefully, he will have a lot of support behind him

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 22, 2017 5:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I know him personally, wont happen.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 22, 2017 6:55 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Any opponent of Cadish will have support.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 8:45 pm

Is NSC entirely up in Carson City, or how much of their time is at the new "Palace" that Hardesty stuck the tax payers with?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 9:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

2 justices are in Las Vegas; 5 justices are in Carson City.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 10:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Who is where? So we have that palace to house 2 justices and give the Court the chance to conduct en bancs down here? How often does the Court actually do En Bancs in Las Vegas?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 12:55 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Douglas & Pickering are in Vegas. Everyone else is in Carson.

Two court of appeals judges are in Vegas: Silver and Tao. Judge Gibbons is in Carson.

The NSC usually holds en bancs in Vegas every other month. Panel arguments a few days a month.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 10:43 pm

Friend of mine will be mediating a Family Court case and he wants input. Moderate in terms of difficulty and what is involved. If he and opposing attorney choose to mediate before a Family Law attorney, who should they consider?

If they choose to mediate before a judge should they use a Senior Judge, or should they use a sitting Family Court Judge? Which of the sitting judges are available for such mediations, and which ones might be effective?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 11:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Roger Giuliani does a really good job mediating Family law cases. I think Gaston is vastly overrated.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 11:56 pm

Agreed. Gaston's stature seems to me to be largely the result of his marketing skills and connections. After he failed to be re-elected, he eventually decided to start a mediation business, featuring the fact that he was a retired judge. The fact that he was a judge, combined with his built-in connections in the legal community, may possibly have more to do with the success of his enterprise than his actual skill set does.

That said, although he may possibly be over-rated I never heard anything really bad about him as a mediator. So I assume he is at least okay.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 20, 2017 11:58 pm

I understand that a few of the sitting Family Court judges accept these referrals and will do a good job(obviously, at no charge to the parties).

Perhaps someone can identify such judges.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 12:26 am

Tim Kelly

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 27, 2017 12:00 am
Reply to  Anonymous

This man is the reason why Cadish should not be elected dog catcher.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 27, 2017 12:17 am
Reply to  Anonymous

No this man should not be employed by the EJDC. However he has nothing to do with her being a jurist.

Particular
Guest
Particular
December 27, 2017 9:03 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

What's the deal?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
December 21, 2017 12:30 am

GOP tax plan.

Particular
Guest
Particular
December 22, 2017 4:21 pm

Democrats and their sore losing way of life…