The US Supreme Court issued several decisions this morning including much anticipated ones on a citizenship census question and gerrymandering. Head over to SCOTUSblog to get up to speed.
The RJ is resurrecting its Judging the Judges judicial performance evaluation. [RJ]
According to Allstate’s annual rankings, Las Vegas drivers are worse than the national average. [NewtoLasVegas.com]
and according to Allstate, all doctors that treat PI claimants are fraudsters under RICO. the biggest scam is how insurance companies evaluate and compensate claims.
Not all doctors. Just doctors that don't actually treat patients. That have the assistant immediately schedule 20 weeks of 3x weekly visits, and bill accordingly, without ever actually seeing the patient again. Oh, and doctors that own the surgical centers where the procedures are performed at significantly higher rates and costs than surgical centers not owned by the doctors who referred patients there.
If only your comment was about the current state of affairs. The 2 doctors don’t see patients that often. One owns a surgery center just like many doctors do. I think her issue was failing to disclose that to patients, but that does not rise to a civil RICO claim. I personally can’t stand either doctor, but Allstate does this across the nation. It is to intimidate. The reality is if insurance companies did the right thing PI lawyers would be out of business and so would ID lawyers.
I say what 9;27 says before every appearance down at the RJC to show how serious the jurists are down there.
Guest
Anonymous
June 27, 2019 4:36 pm
It does not matter much if the RJ is reviving the Judging The Judges survey. It has no real effect and does not induce accountability.
For example, the three or four judges at the RJC who tended to be graded the lowest, were also among the most entrenched, well-financed judges, with high name recognition. So, despite the low ratings they either ran unopposed, or only received token opposition, and thus were handily re-elected.
So, where's the accountability in all that? And that was a main(if not the main) purpose of the survey–to create a climate of accountability whereby there would be serious consequences for poorly performing judges.
But the actual consequences is that the poorly performing judges are rewarded with convincing re-election victories and, often, no opposition whatsoever.
Is our discourse on the judiciary better or worse without the information from the survey? I'd rather have the information than not have it at all. Whether voters pay any attention to it, well that's partly on the voters, partly on interest groups interested in judicial elections, partly on candidates opposing low performing judges, and partly on attorneys to better communicate their feedback about those who wear the black robe.
I particularly like it when the local news media outlet revives a survey of judges when the owner of the local news media outlet has a known grudge against a judge.
9:36 conveys the state of affairs as it is, not as it should be. 9:44 addresses the state of affairs as it should be, and mentions actions that need to be taken in order to change the unsavory dynamics we are stuck with.
9:44 lists some improvements that should occur, such as "attorneys better communicating their feedback" about judges. A lot of attorneys can and will complete the survey and provide negative input as to certain judges. And, yes, more attorneys should get involved with the survey, and/or other methods of disseminating judicial performance.
But a lot more than that needs to be done. The attorneys will need to help finance strong opponents against poorly performing judges. Otherwise, as 9:36 suggests, these same substandard judges will continue to be re-elected no matter how low they score in the survey.
The RJ is owned by Sheldon. Sheldon hates Gonzalez. I would not suspect that you are going to see very favorable rankings of Gonzalez in the Judging the Judges Survey.
It is easy to second guess and complain from the sidelines. Better to get in the game.
Guest
Anonymous
June 27, 2019 7:05 pm
I just want to thank opposing counsel a gift in your motion. You have given me so much to work with, thank you!
Guest
Anonymous
June 27, 2019 7:06 pm
For giving me a gift of your motion.
Guest
Anonymous
June 27, 2019 7:20 pm
Let me pose this question. When you receive a really weak motion or opposition, do you lick your chops with anticipation of how easy it will be for you to attack your opponent's positon, or do you tend to get upset about the gross miss-statements included in such papers?
Someone asked me that recently, and I said it depends. If their brief's main offense is that it is real weak on the legal point at issue, I relish the opportunity to respond on paper and to argue in court.
But if the main offense of the opposing side's brief is that it grossly distorts the facts of the case, and also grossly distorts my own involvement as counsel and representations I supposedly made(which I did not), then my first reaction is in fact anger and indignation.
Of course if someone makes it personal, I get pissed. But then I remember that I have what (I like to think anyway) is a good reputation, and the judge is not going to buy their line of BS. Then I try to take the high road as much as possible in the response (although this is really hard. Have someone else read it (or better yet, write it) before filing.
When a brief is weak on the legal points, yes, I do lick my chops and can't wait to dive in.
But I get annoyed with misstatements, particularly if they appear to be reckless / intentional (there are certain lawyers who do this as a matter of course). It makes things unnecessarily expensive for the client, and it is just disgusting.
I'm always amazed at how much judges let even repeat offenders get away with this. Maybe it would be different if I were the judge, but I think would sanction them if they didn't knock it off after one or two stern warnings.
Agree totally with 1:55. If the brief is merely weak on the Law, I relish the chance to respond and argue.
But if the brief is not primarily focused on the legal point at issue, but instead is dominated by a tone wherein my behavior and handling of the case is condemned, and I am falsely accused of taking certain actions or making certain representations, I initially really see red.
Sometimes because their case sucks as to the law, they detour into a personally motivated style of briefing and arguing. But there are some lawyers who are so conditioned to being so utterly contentious and obstructive, that even if their case is not that weak as to the controlling law, rather than concentrating on bolstering the legal viability of their case even further, they cannot help themselves–they need to personally attack.
Most attorneys bitterly resent, and truly despise, such practitioners.
Am reminded of an attorney who died a couple years ago.
Admittedly, he was financially successful and had practiced for well over half a century, and lived to about 88. But he was someone who generated almost no good will from his colleague and opposing attorneys in the cases his firm handled.
Fortunately, in this instance, posters noticed that the obituary listed a large family, including spouse, children and grand children, so most posters were circumspect and restrained and didn't want to say anything too directly negative in such close proximity to his death.
But some posters did note, quite accurately in my estimation, that the legacy of an attorney should not be based merely on how long they practiced and/or that they were financially successful. This attorney had both longevity in practice, as well as financial success, on his side.
But what he did not have is even one attorney observing that he acted decently, or with compassion, or with any sense of understanding or proportion.
Instead, attorneys, although being somewhat constrained in how they expressed matters in the wake of his death and avoiding direct name-calling and character attack, noted that no accommodation was ever agreed to by the attorney or those in his firm. Apparently, even if someone wanted a brief extension on filing something due to a death in their immediate family, it was not agreed to even if the extension caused zero prejudice to the other side. In short, every case incorporated a highly obstructive, nightmarish approach, even when it could have been easily resolved in his client's favor for a fraction of the attorney fees eventually spent.
No issue was ever negotiated no matter how minor. Everything justified declaring World War III.
In my book such attorneys are a rank obscenity to the profession regardless of how long they practiced, or how much money they earned, or the successes they had. I have known attorneys who were even more successful than him but who always had a sense of proportion, knew how to treat people, and knew how to reasonably negotiate matters.
Fortunately, I never had a case with this attorney, but have certainly encountered some who had some of the traits this attorney reportedly had. I just find it a real shame that he chose to practice in such a manner that people really had to struggle to say something nice about him on a professional level. Indeed, as to his on line obituary, a few people who knew him separate form his law practice made some positive remarks, but not one fellow attorney had anything remotely positive to say.
On this issue discussed by 5:54, if this post refers to who I think it does, then 5:54 is being way too restrained and diplomatic.
I would observe that there were only two occasions that I did not grant an initial request for a continuance or late filing of an opposition. On both occasions I was truly convinced that time was of the essence and that if the matter was continued, real harm would come to my client. So, yes, professionalism and civility between counsel is a must.
I know the attorney of whom 5:54 speaks. He has progeny of his practice who practice the same way, who so desired to emulate his style and be him. He was actually one of the reasons that I tell young associates to find a mentor, not only who has his name on the door or on a street here in town, but one who practices law in the way that you believe law should be practiced.
On the other coin, I do grant request for extensions, but I am required when said opposing attorney treats me like shit? If that is the case, all bets are off.
I have had an attorney request a continuance that is a detriment to my client, then my hands are tied. Otherwise, happy to grant a reasonable continuance.
She was not unopposed. Someone filed against her and then withdrew. Several attorneys(other than those mentioned) gave early contributions. They were returned when the opponent withdrew.
Guest
Anonymous
June 27, 2019 10:36 pm
One poster has suggested that the RJ is reviving the judicial survey so that the paper's owner can smear a certain judge.
Obviously, the judge being referred to is Judge Gonzalez, and she tends to perform very well on past surveys. So, if she continues to perform well the paper will be unable to write artless which slime her based on those survey results.
I mean, what could they possibly write? They can't have an article, or a column or editorial, declaring that despite the judge's really high ratings on the paper's own survey, that she actually sucks as a judge. And then to supposedly prove their point that she sucks as a judge despite her rally high ratings, argue about the rulings she made against the paper's multi-million dollar owner in the litigation he has which is assigned to her court.
So, their only hope is that her ratings go way down, I don't see that happening, but if they do that can provide them with much better flexibility, and much better pretext, for the articles they print. They can then run repeated articles, columns and editorials to the effect the public should not tolerate poorly performing judges and should instead vote them out, etc.
But, again, if her ratings remain high, they cannot effectively persuade the public that the judge is really bad because the paper disagrees with rulings she made in the case involving the paper's owner.
So, I guess I'm suggesting that the survey is being revived for some separate, and far more logical, purpose and motivation.
Guest
Anonymous
June 27, 2019 10:59 pm
Attorneys remain in a real difficult positon when it comes to contributing to judges–particularly if they are contacted for a contribution on behalf of a judge they appear before frequently and/or have a very valuable case assigned to.
Even some attorneys who generally do okay when looking at the income generated for an entire year, may have cash flow problems for months at a time–cases not settling and not much in the way of hourly billing cases to pick up the slack, etc.
And that's why a lot of lawyers try to avoid such calls, rather than directly taking the calls and responding "no." After all, no lawyer wants to say we won't donate because we don't like you as a judge or we disapprove of judicial elections, nor do attorneys wish to say we would donate but we are too cash strapped right now(makes the firm appear unsuccessful and financially challenged, which is an impression you never wish to create before an elected judge).
So, I budget for judicial elections and just accept it as a necessary evil I have to deal with every six years, and will contribute a little something to each judge or judicial campaign that directly contacts me for a contribution.
I only donate a relatively small amount to each contested campaign($500. is the maximum, but I usually only contribute $200. or $300.)but it seems to do the trick.
It seems to me(and I admit these are my inferential impressions based on what I have observed)that if I avoid their solicitation, or accept the call but say "no", I detect some subsequent resentment.
But if I donate a small amount, and perhaps attend one of their fund raisers, it seems I am treated a lot better.
And, without naming names, I confirmed this theory with the one judge I am actually good friends with.
He said if a lawyer can only contribute $50. or $100. dollars, or can't even do that but makes a point of stopping by one of the fundraisers held by the judge, the judge really appreciates that. But, on the other hand, if another lawyer is completely dodging the judge's calls during election, that such is a "little off-putting."
He, of course, neither said nor implied that such lawyer would be at a disadvantage in his court, but no one wants to appear in front of a judge who finds their interaction, or in this case the non-interaction, with the judge to be "off putting."
So, yes, this process of electing judges, and them collecting money from the attorneys who appear before them, really sucks. And being hit up for the money really sucks even more. But until the process changes, I have decided that what is best for me is to bite the bullet once every six years and provides a few small contributions to a few judges, or at least attend a few fund raisers.
But, I only can speak for myself. If others are opposed on principle and won't donate, I certainly respect that a great deal. I am just pointing out that my approach works better for me.
Guest
Anonymous
June 27, 2019 11:17 pm
I will tell you that I don't give money to judges who treat me like shit, so I don't care if I tell them no or not, because they will still treat me like shit. Your name starts with a G.
Give them money and they will never treat you like shit. Its a lock!!
Guest
Anonymous
June 28, 2019 12:20 am
3:59 here again.
To; 4:17. Are you assuming G would treat you poorly whether or not you contribute but you have not actually contributed, or have you actually contributed and yet she still treats you shabbily?
Ms. Apple Polisher
Mr. A. Kizzer
Mr. Backscratcher
Mr. Backslapper
Ms. Bootlicker
Mr. Fawner
Mr. & Mrs. Flatterer
Mr. Kowtower
Mr. Lackey
Ms. Minion
Ms. Yezperson
So you are and attorney. You practice in front many different judges for a living. You have the opportunity to get some "face time" with some of them so they see you as something more than just another attorney, and you think that is wrong? or brownosing? You are doing it wrong….
Guest
Anonymous
June 28, 2019 11:12 pm
Is being a non equity partner at an insurance defense firm worth it?
Guest
Anonymous
June 29, 2019 1:21 am
Well…I imagine it depends on the firm. For me, it means much larger salary, no billable hours, nice perks (car paid, better bonus structure, unlimited time off, etc.) So yeah, worth it. I'd take that any day over sitting in a windowless basement-like office hustling on my own trying to make ends meet and keep the lights on with no guaranteed pay day. But if you want to know if it's worth it for a particular person or at a particular firm, why not just ask him/her?
Guest
Anonymous
July 3, 2019 2:10 am
The survey is a complete joke and waste of resources, not to mention completely misleading to the public.
It has about the same validity as establishing a judging the teachers survey wherein the only evaluators are anonymous student votes. Who would likely receive better scores from the students, the teacher that assigns 2 hours of homework a night, takes attendance, controls the classroom, uses closed-book essay tests; or the teacher that doesn't care if the students attend, assigns no homework, allows the class time to be used as a social hour and gives an open-book multiple choice test which is easy enough that everyone gets an A grade?
In the RJ survey, where is the input from the actual litigants, the people who are actually impacted by the judge's performance? Why aren't pro se litigants allowed to voice their opinions, aren't they expected to follow all of the court rules that an attorney is held to? What about court staff that observe the judges on a daily basis?
If the RJ really desires to provide the public with valuable information in which to make an informed choice about the judges (a valuable service if done appropriately in a neutral manner), it should use neutral evaluators. Perhaps assembling a neutral panel of experts (retired judges, law professors, sitting judges from another jurisdiction, etc.) and have them review the pleadings, videos of the hearings and the rulings issued. The panel could, after reviewing the materials that the judge reviewed and observing the judge's conduct at any hearings, could issue a report as to the appropriateness of the judge's performance.
This type of neutral review may be more expensive and time consuming, but would be far more likely to render an accurate picture of the judge's performance. The RJ has shown, like most media outlets, it is not overly concerned with accuracy but rather prefers scandals and inflammatory type stories… If it bleeds it leads..
Under the RJ's model, limiting the reviewers to only individuals that have an axe to grind provides an outlet for releasing that venom and increases the chances of a juicy story.
As a voter, I have learned to use the RJ survey results in voting for judges, but not in the manner that the RJ intends. Unless I have independent information about a judge, I assume the highly rated judges are rubber stamps for the attorneys willing to abdicate their oath and role in the legal system in order to protect their own turf (typical politician); the low rated judges on the other hand I assume are doing their jobs in a tough manner.. holding the attorneys (and parties) the the rules and laws rather than playing favorites or rubber stamping what the attorney wants even when it is against the applicable rules and laws.
and according to Allstate, all doctors that treat PI claimants are fraudsters under RICO. the biggest scam is how insurance companies evaluate and compensate claims.
Look at who works at Allstate. That place is a joke.
Not all doctors. Just doctors that don't actually treat patients. That have the assistant immediately schedule 20 weeks of 3x weekly visits, and bill accordingly, without ever actually seeing the patient again. Oh, and doctors that own the surgical centers where the procedures are performed at significantly higher rates and costs than surgical centers not owned by the doctors who referred patients there.
If only your comment was about the current state of affairs. The 2 doctors don’t see patients that often. One owns a surgery center just like many doctors do. I think her issue was failing to disclose that to patients, but that does not rise to a civil RICO claim. I personally can’t stand either doctor, but Allstate does this across the nation. It is to intimidate. The reality is if insurance companies did the right thing PI lawyers would be out of business and so would ID lawyers.
My name is Mister Ed
That sums up the bar meeting pretty well. Not there, glad I am not there. Have not received a judicial survey since 2010.
I say what 9;27 says before every appearance down at the RJC to show how serious the jurists are down there.
It does not matter much if the RJ is reviving the Judging The Judges survey. It has no real effect and does not induce accountability.
For example, the three or four judges at the RJC who tended to be graded the lowest, were also among the most entrenched, well-financed judges, with high name recognition. So, despite the low ratings they either ran unopposed, or only received token opposition, and thus were handily re-elected.
So, where's the accountability in all that? And that was a main(if not the main) purpose of the survey–to create a climate of accountability whereby there would be serious consequences for poorly performing judges.
But the actual consequences is that the poorly performing judges are rewarded with convincing re-election victories and, often, no opposition whatsoever.
Is our discourse on the judiciary better or worse without the information from the survey? I'd rather have the information than not have it at all. Whether voters pay any attention to it, well that's partly on the voters, partly on interest groups interested in judicial elections, partly on candidates opposing low performing judges, and partly on attorneys to better communicate their feedback about those who wear the black robe.
I like the judges who use it as an election ploy when they misrepresent the actual figures or skew the results of the survey.
I particularly like it when the local news media outlet revives a survey of judges when the owner of the local news media outlet has a known grudge against a judge.
Isn't that what attorneys do: spin less then positive facts into something phenomenal? Something about making a silk purse of a pig's ear.
Judges have a lot of free time at the swap meet, I mean the annual meeting.
9:36 conveys the state of affairs as it is, not as it should be. 9:44 addresses the state of affairs as it should be, and mentions actions that need to be taken in order to change the unsavory dynamics we are stuck with.
9:44 lists some improvements that should occur, such as "attorneys better communicating their feedback" about judges. A lot of attorneys can and will complete the survey and provide negative input as to certain judges. And, yes, more attorneys should get involved with the survey, and/or other methods of disseminating judicial performance.
But a lot more than that needs to be done. The attorneys will need to help finance strong opponents against poorly performing judges. Otherwise, as 9:36 suggests, these same substandard judges will continue to be re-elected no matter how low they score in the survey.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Gonzalez's ratings will be lower in the RJ's new survey.
Yes, bc attorneys rate Gonzales on what RJ tells them to.
The RJ is owned by Sheldon. Sheldon hates Gonzalez. I would not suspect that you are going to see very favorable rankings of Gonzalez in the Judging the Judges Survey.
Gonzales sounds complainy.
It is easy to second guess and complain from the sidelines. Better to get in the game.
I just want to thank opposing counsel a gift in your motion. You have given me so much to work with, thank you!
For giving me a gift of your motion.
Let me pose this question. When you receive a really weak motion or opposition, do you lick your chops with anticipation of how easy it will be for you to attack your opponent's positon, or do you tend to get upset about the gross miss-statements included in such papers?
Someone asked me that recently, and I said it depends. If their brief's main offense is that it is real weak on the legal point at issue, I relish the opportunity to respond on paper and to argue in court.
But if the main offense of the opposing side's brief is that it grossly distorts the facts of the case, and also grossly distorts my own involvement as counsel and representations I supposedly made(which I did not), then my first reaction is in fact anger and indignation.
Of course if someone makes it personal, I get pissed. But then I remember that I have what (I like to think anyway) is a good reputation, and the judge is not going to buy their line of BS. Then I try to take the high road as much as possible in the response (although this is really hard. Have someone else read it (or better yet, write it) before filing.
When a brief is weak on the legal points, yes, I do lick my chops and can't wait to dive in.
But I get annoyed with misstatements, particularly if they appear to be reckless / intentional (there are certain lawyers who do this as a matter of course). It makes things unnecessarily expensive for the client, and it is just disgusting.
I'm always amazed at how much judges let even repeat offenders get away with this. Maybe it would be different if I were the judge, but I think would sanction them if they didn't knock it off after one or two stern warnings.
Agree totally with 1:55. If the brief is merely weak on the Law, I relish the chance to respond and argue.
But if the brief is not primarily focused on the legal point at issue, but instead is dominated by a tone wherein my behavior and handling of the case is condemned, and I am falsely accused of taking certain actions or making certain representations, I initially really see red.
Sometimes because their case sucks as to the law, they detour into a personally motivated style of briefing and arguing. But there are some lawyers who are so conditioned to being so utterly contentious and obstructive, that even if their case is not that weak as to the controlling law, rather than concentrating on bolstering the legal viability of their case even further, they cannot help themselves–they need to personally attack.
Most attorneys bitterly resent, and truly despise, such practitioners.
Am reminded of an attorney who died a couple years ago.
Admittedly, he was financially successful and had practiced for well over half a century, and lived to about 88. But he was someone who generated almost no good will from his colleague and opposing attorneys in the cases his firm handled.
Fortunately, in this instance, posters noticed that the obituary listed a large family, including spouse, children and grand children, so most posters were circumspect and restrained and didn't want to say anything too directly negative in such close proximity to his death.
But some posters did note, quite accurately in my estimation, that the legacy of an attorney should not be based merely on how long they practiced and/or that they were financially successful. This attorney had both longevity in practice, as well as financial success, on his side.
But what he did not have is even one attorney observing that he acted decently, or with compassion, or with any sense of understanding or proportion.
Instead, attorneys, although being somewhat constrained in how they expressed matters in the wake of his death and avoiding direct name-calling and character attack, noted that no accommodation was ever agreed to by the attorney or those in his firm. Apparently, even if someone wanted a brief extension on filing something due to a death in their immediate family, it was not agreed to even if the extension caused zero prejudice to the other side. In short, every case incorporated a highly obstructive, nightmarish approach, even when it could have been easily resolved in his client's favor for a fraction of the attorney fees eventually spent.
No issue was ever negotiated no matter how minor. Everything justified declaring World War III.
In my book such attorneys are a rank obscenity to the profession regardless of how long they practiced, or how much money they earned, or the successes they had. I have known attorneys who were even more successful than him but who always had a sense of proportion, knew how to treat people, and knew how to reasonably negotiate matters.
Fortunately, I never had a case with this attorney, but have certainly encountered some who had some of the traits this attorney reportedly had. I just find it a real shame that he chose to practice in such a manner that people really had to struggle to say something nice about him on a professional level. Indeed, as to his on line obituary, a few people who knew him separate form his law practice made some positive remarks, but not one fellow attorney had anything remotely positive to say.
On this issue discussed by 5:54, if this post refers to who I think it does, then 5:54 is being way too restrained and diplomatic.
I would observe that there were only two occasions that I did not grant an initial request for a continuance or late filing of an opposition. On both occasions I was truly convinced that time was of the essence and that if the matter was continued, real harm would come to my client. So, yes, professionalism and civility between counsel is a must.
I know the attorney of whom 5:54 speaks. He has progeny of his practice who practice the same way, who so desired to emulate his style and be him. He was actually one of the reasons that I tell young associates to find a mentor, not only who has his name on the door or on a street here in town, but one who practices law in the way that you believe law should be practiced.
On the other coin, I do grant request for extensions, but I am required when said opposing attorney treats me like shit? If that is the case, all bets are off.
I have had an attorney request a continuance that is a detriment to my client, then my hands are tied. Otherwise, happy to grant a reasonable continuance.
I recently had assholes drag their feet on giving me a continuance bc of my due date. Nearly died having my son, fucker. Karma.
I am going to say, "Hi, I am Mr. Ed," when Gonzales calls our firm to give money to her campaign like we did in her last campaign.
She ran unopposed in her last campaign. The only firms who contributed to her campaign were Laura Fitzsimmons, Carbajal & McNutt and McDonald Carano.
She was not unopposed. Someone filed against her and then withdrew. Several attorneys(other than those mentioned) gave early contributions. They were returned when the opponent withdrew.
One poster has suggested that the RJ is reviving the judicial survey so that the paper's owner can smear a certain judge.
Obviously, the judge being referred to is Judge Gonzalez, and she tends to perform very well on past surveys. So, if she continues to perform well the paper will be unable to write artless which slime her based on those survey results.
I mean, what could they possibly write? They can't have an article, or a column or editorial, declaring that despite the judge's really high ratings on the paper's own survey, that she actually sucks as a judge. And then to supposedly prove their point that she sucks as a judge despite her rally high ratings, argue about the rulings she made against the paper's multi-million dollar owner in the litigation he has which is assigned to her court.
So, their only hope is that her ratings go way down, I don't see that happening, but if they do that can provide them with much better flexibility, and much better pretext, for the articles they print. They can then run repeated articles, columns and editorials to the effect the public should not tolerate poorly performing judges and should instead vote them out, etc.
But, again, if her ratings remain high, they cannot effectively persuade the public that the judge is really bad because the paper disagrees with rulings she made in the case involving the paper's owner.
So, I guess I'm suggesting that the survey is being revived for some separate, and far more logical, purpose and motivation.
Attorneys remain in a real difficult positon when it comes to contributing to judges–particularly if they are contacted for a contribution on behalf of a judge they appear before frequently and/or have a very valuable case assigned to.
Even some attorneys who generally do okay when looking at the income generated for an entire year, may have cash flow problems for months at a time–cases not settling and not much in the way of hourly billing cases to pick up the slack, etc.
And that's why a lot of lawyers try to avoid such calls, rather than directly taking the calls and responding "no." After all, no lawyer wants to say we won't donate because we don't like you as a judge or we disapprove of judicial elections, nor do attorneys wish to say we would donate but we are too cash strapped right now(makes the firm appear unsuccessful and financially challenged, which is an impression you never wish to create before an elected judge).
So, I budget for judicial elections and just accept it as a necessary evil I have to deal with every six years, and will contribute a little something to each judge or judicial campaign that directly contacts me for a contribution.
I only donate a relatively small amount to each contested campaign($500. is the maximum, but I usually only contribute $200. or $300.)but it seems to do the trick.
It seems to me(and I admit these are my inferential impressions based on what I have observed)that if I avoid their solicitation, or accept the call but say "no", I detect some subsequent resentment.
But if I donate a small amount, and perhaps attend one of their fund raisers, it seems I am treated a lot better.
And, without naming names, I confirmed this theory with the one judge I am actually good friends with.
He said if a lawyer can only contribute $50. or $100. dollars, or can't even do that but makes a point of stopping by one of the fundraisers held by the judge, the judge really appreciates that. But, on the other hand, if another lawyer is completely dodging the judge's calls during election, that such is a "little off-putting."
He, of course, neither said nor implied that such lawyer would be at a disadvantage in his court, but no one wants to appear in front of a judge who finds their interaction, or in this case the non-interaction, with the judge to be "off putting."
So, yes, this process of electing judges, and them collecting money from the attorneys who appear before them, really sucks. And being hit up for the money really sucks even more. But until the process changes, I have decided that what is best for me is to bite the bullet once every six years and provides a few small contributions to a few judges, or at least attend a few fund raisers.
But, I only can speak for myself. If others are opposed on principle and won't donate, I certainly respect that a great deal. I am just pointing out that my approach works better for me.
I will tell you that I don't give money to judges who treat me like shit, so I don't care if I tell them no or not, because they will still treat me like shit. Your name starts with a G.
Give them money and they will never treat you like shit. Its a lock!!
3:59 here again.
To; 4:17. Are you assuming G would treat you poorly whether or not you contribute but you have not actually contributed, or have you actually contributed and yet she still treats you shabbily?
Poor Elizabeth. If ya'll are determined to pick on judges, there are better candidates for criticism.
No contribution. She is just her. I used to like her.
Are there any attorneys at the annual meeting other than Bogs?
Non-BOG lawyers in attendance:
Ms. Apple Polisher
Mr. A. Kizzer
Mr. Backscratcher
Mr. Backslapper
Ms. Bootlicker
Mr. Fawner
Mr. & Mrs. Flatterer
Mr. Kowtower
Mr. Lackey
Ms. Minion
Ms. Yezperson
(countdown to deletion in 3-2-1…)
So you are and attorney. You practice in front many different judges for a living. You have the opportunity to get some "face time" with some of them so they see you as something more than just another attorney, and you think that is wrong? or brownosing? You are doing it wrong….
Is being a non equity partner at an insurance defense firm worth it?
Well…I imagine it depends on the firm. For me, it means much larger salary, no billable hours, nice perks (car paid, better bonus structure, unlimited time off, etc.) So yeah, worth it. I'd take that any day over sitting in a windowless basement-like office hustling on my own trying to make ends meet and keep the lights on with no guaranteed pay day. But if you want to know if it's worth it for a particular person or at a particular firm, why not just ask him/her?
The survey is a complete joke and waste of resources, not to mention completely misleading to the public.
It has about the same validity as establishing a judging the teachers survey wherein the only evaluators are anonymous student votes. Who would likely receive better scores from the students, the teacher that assigns 2 hours of homework a night, takes attendance, controls the classroom, uses closed-book essay tests; or the teacher that doesn't care if the students attend, assigns no homework, allows the class time to be used as a social hour and gives an open-book multiple choice test which is easy enough that everyone gets an A grade?
In the RJ survey, where is the input from the actual litigants, the people who are actually impacted by the judge's performance? Why aren't pro se litigants allowed to voice their opinions, aren't they expected to follow all of the court rules that an attorney is held to? What about court staff that observe the judges on a daily basis?
If the RJ really desires to provide the public with valuable information in which to make an informed choice about the judges (a valuable service if done appropriately in a neutral manner), it should use neutral evaluators. Perhaps assembling a neutral panel of experts (retired judges, law professors, sitting judges from another jurisdiction, etc.) and have them review the pleadings, videos of the hearings and the rulings issued. The panel could, after reviewing the materials that the judge reviewed and observing the judge's conduct at any hearings, could issue a report as to the appropriateness of the judge's performance.
This type of neutral review may be more expensive and time consuming, but would be far more likely to render an accurate picture of the judge's performance. The RJ has shown, like most media outlets, it is not overly concerned with accuracy but rather prefers scandals and inflammatory type stories… If it bleeds it leads..
Under the RJ's model, limiting the reviewers to only individuals that have an axe to grind provides an outlet for releasing that venom and increases the chances of a juicy story.
As a voter, I have learned to use the RJ survey results in voting for judges, but not in the manner that the RJ intends. Unless I have independent information about a judge, I assume the highly rated judges are rubber stamps for the attorneys willing to abdicate their oath and role in the legal system in order to protect their own turf (typical politician); the low rated judges on the other hand I assume are doing their jobs in a tough manner.. holding the attorneys (and parties) the the rules and laws rather than playing favorites or rubber stamping what the attorney wants even when it is against the applicable rules and laws.