2021 Annual Meeting

  • Law

48 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 4:59 pm

It's too hot for me to bash, comment or spread rumors. Saving my energy for cocktails at 5 PM.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 5:07 pm

Unexpectedly lost a friend this week.

Make sure you're checking up on your friends and loved ones. Spend time doing what you love. Life's too short.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 6:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Amen!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 6:20 pm

I just walked by the SBN Annual Meeting and it looked like it always does – their traditional homage to Satan to Bless their efforts to take down SOLO firms, the annual incestuous drawing to decide whose family members/friends get to be hired, and this year's big event, the new Bar Counsel man-child is finally shaving so they got him a nice shaving kit (of course, from the general fund). If they ever put down their cameras from taking selfies with the severed heads of those whose Trust Accounts were off less than a dollar, I will send photos to the blog.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 6:25 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Comment of the day

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 7:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Still waiting to hear from Andrew Craner about his promis3s to smalls and solo firms? Weeks of silence.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:24 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:08×3

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 18, 2021 12:23 am
Reply to  Anonymous

You can also thank your wonderful Nevada Supreme Court.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 6:36 pm

11:25–No, 11;20 does NOT receive comment of the day.

By bestowing the "comment of the day" accolade upon 11:20, that indicates you think 11:20 is being clever, witty and satirical.

Problem is 11:20 is too dead on accurate about the SBN dynamics involved, and the situation is too disturbing, to be entertaining or humorous.

What occurs to the small or solo practitioners, and how prominent attorneys and larger firms are held to a much less rigorous standard, has always been quite concerning and troubling.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 6:42 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You're not the boss of comment of the day! I am!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 7:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Okay, but I still think 11:20 hit too close to home to be truly amusing.

It's just too troubling, and I am convinced they did in fact have an homage to Satan to bless their efforts to bedevil small firms and solos.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:26 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

The answer is easy. Small firms and solos are easy soft targets for SBN. No political issues that would attend a large firm disciplinary action. No one in the old boy network is offended.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 7:18 pm

This blog has taken on a sad, nerds in the corner quietly mocking the jocks, almost incel tone in the last year or so. I miss the more witty banter of yesteryear, but I fear that's a relic of the past.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:41 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

So be witty rather than whining. You have a keyboard. Dance for us.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:59 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I agree with 12:18. It's he who shall not be named and his group. He likes to troll this blog so he can get legal gossip and then repeat it to make it sound like he is in the know and has judge/attorney friends keeping him updated on the latest in the legal community. Did you see his traffic stop on youtube? What a jackass! He kept trying to name drop. So much cringe.

We just have to keep up the witty comments and ignore the trolls.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:27 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@1:59, whats the youtube link?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 7:57 pm

SBN Student Government is disgraceful.

Maybe after #ArizonaAudit, CyberNinjas can come audit the BOG vote totals that have NEVER seem to be published anywhere.

#Trumpwon

#ArizonaAudit will reveal extent of fraud

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 18, 2021 4:35 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Even Rattenberger is admitting that there were huge irregularities in Fulton County, GA. He knew this along, even while he was declaring on television that the GA election was the most secure election evah!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:15 pm

Did I miss something; if opposing counsel makes arguments against you, it's ok to sue them?
A-21-828668-C

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Yes, because we need to multiply lawsuits like rabbits, there is just not enough lawsuits.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I read the complaint. Just…wow. On one hand, I love the gossip. On the other hand, why would a licensed attorney file such a ridiculous complaint? And have they not heard of the Streisand effect?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 9:04 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Wait until he reads that Yelp review Yikes!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 9:13 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

That Complaint is why I haven't gone solo. I don't think I would ever do anything like that, but I have definitely modified my strategy and plan of attack after talking through things with another attorney in the office. I try to be very generous with my time when other attorneys want to use me as a sounding board for the same reason. In my opinion, this attorney would have benefitted from having someone to talk this through with.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 9:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

This is why I am not getting divorced. Not worth it. Suffer inside the cherished confines of a covenant rather than suffer horribly outside of it. Or, as I tell my friends who lament their marital fates, "they are all crazy, so get over it."

anonymous
Guest
anonymous
June 18, 2021 1:15 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I skimmed over this file on Odyssey. That's 15 minutes of my life that I'll never get back. This is why I stay out of Family Court. Everyone is bat&*it crazy.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:34 pm

Well, the comments on this blog are useful in many respects, not the least of which is to empower readers of the blog that there are many illogical attorneys out there, and illogical attorneys are who you want as adversaries.

For example, believe it was at about 11:21 last night, some genius said that they would never give former Judge Moss credit or credibility for anything, because as a judge she had some calendar control issues, and the attorney didn't like her approach on a few cases(translation: the attorney lost the cases).

So, on account of this the poster said it would be impossible for them to give the judge any credit, and impossible for them to imbue the judge with any credibility, on any issue–including problem gambling which the judge is one of the foremost experts on.

You definitely want this attorney as an adversary if that is how he or she analyzes matters, and if that is the logic they bring to their legal arguments and briefings.

I'm not taking up for Moss. In fact, I tend to agree with the criticisms the poster made about her calendaring, inordinate wait times, some demeanor issues, etc.

But the huge logical leap they then took was alarming: They don't like her as a judge, so therefore she must know nothing about problem gambling.

And we see this type of logic from a lot of posters–this or that judge or lawyer sucks so therefore they have no talent, or know absolutely nothing, in any other area.

So, using this same logic the poster used to conclude that Moss is useless on the issue of problem gambling, let's say an attorney is generally viewed as one of the foremost bankruptcy experts in Southern Nevada.

But we then learn that he is not effective at auto mechanics–specifically, he failed at replacing his auto transmission. We would then need to change our opinions about his legal prowess, and now conclude that we could never give him any credit as a bankruptcy attorney as he does not know how to replace his auto alternator.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:56 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You seem a bit pompous. Re Moss…her calendar issues were not minor. They were ridiculous. As in, your 10am hearing getting called at 1:30. And it was not once in a while. It was ALWAYS. She was also not great on the bench and not great with her orders. She was certainly not the worst judge on the bench, but no where near good.

Does that mean she knows nothing about problem gambling? No. But it is fair to question someone's competence on a state/national issue when they have a long term, established history of being middle of the road at best.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 9:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

And damn you if you don't post on blog comments with the same logic, analysis and thoroughness as you would in a brief. You must be a shit attorney because, you lack total convincingness and logic in every aspect of your life.

Who are you Alexis Plunkett?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:01 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

1:56, 1:34 here. You and I can agree to disagree.

I may not want to hire someone, even if they are very proficient in an area, if I am unhappy as to direct dealings I had with them in some other area of endeavor they are involved in.

That would be a normal human reaction.

My problem is you did not merely say you would not sit through one of her problem gambling seminars because you did not like her as a judge, and don't want to deal with her any more than you have to.
r
That would be a normal reaction.

But you went much further and stated that you could not view her as having any credibility on problem gambling, or any issue for that matter, because you don't like her as a judge. And that is simply illogical, unreasonable and unfair in my view. I understand you disagree.

And as for 2:29, what you say may sound reasonable on the surface if we were discussing comments someone makes in court vs. how they may behave, and the things they may say, when they are drinking with their friends.

But this was not some casual, joking conversation between friends on something of no importance. On a very public legal blog people were weighing in on the very serious issue of problem gambling which destroys many lives.

So, yes I would expect people would take that issue somewhat seriously, and view that more as a serious legal/social discussion, rather than your view that the blog, even when discussing such a serious issue, is just smoke and joke time where wise ass, dismissive remarks rule the day.

Thus, 2:29 you and I likewise have a difference of viewpoint.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:08 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Hey everyone. Is 1:56 right? If someone is not a great judge(or not a great lawyer for that matter), is it fair to automatically question their competence as to some outside issue(not directly linked to their judicial or legal duties) that they have adopted as a cause or mission of sorts?

I don't know, so I'm asking.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:11 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

1:56 here…I'm not the one who was posting re Moss last night. I just weighed in because I thought your comment was pompous and I disagreed with your take. I don't necessarily agree with the commenter from yesterday either…I just see where they're coming from.

To answer your response though…by your logic, if someone batshit crazy person has one lucid comment about a serious issue we now have to take them seriously? I disagree. When someone has a well deserved reputation for mediocrity in their professional capacity, just because they can parrot a legitimate policy argument does not mean we have to take them too seriously.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 18, 2021 12:10 am
Reply to  Anonymous

3:11 and 1:56–Well, I'm back and will attempt to answer your question, although I think it was meant largely as a rhetorical question

But answering it is not easy because you have a skill(which I admire, by the way) of twisting someone's position to the point where it is now phrased as absurdly as you can possibly phrase it, so that you now have a straw man which can easily be knocked down.

No, I agree, of course, if someone is bat-shit crazy, but makes one lucid, rational comment on an issue, that in no way establishes that they have any real credibility on that issue.

But I think we are dealing with something entirely different here. You think that someone was a poor to mediocre judge. But if she was a poor to mediocre judge, that does not automatically mean she should be vested with no credibility as to her mission as to problem gambling.

Her material and presentations should be considered before someone dismisses her knowledge in the area as worthless merely because some people were not impressed with her as a judge.

This is a very critical issue, and not one other past or present public official has had much to say on this issue. After all, gambling is the life blood of our community, so I get it.

But lives are being destroyed, and I for one, would hope that everyone would at least lend an ear to the topic.

I realize the she may not be the ideal messenger, and perhaps a more highly rated or highly regarded judge or public servant would have found a more immediate, willing audience if they took up the cause.

But they have not and she is the lone voice in the wilderness.
And she is, it appears, recognized as a national expert.

I get that she was not a well-rated judge, but we are now dealing with something entirely different–and a lot more important than what we thought of her when she was on the bench.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:43 pm

I suck.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 8:44 pm

1:34–I hear what you're saying but I didn't necessarily take the comment to mean that if the poster doesn't like something about someone, that that person must have no talent or skill in any area.

I took it to be more of an emotional reaction, than a logical one. The poster presumably knows that Moss may well be an expert at problem gambling, but that the poster would have trouble giving her credit for anything because he/she is so embittered and repelled by their experiences before the judge.

Some CPA really screwed up my tax return about 25 years ago(which he finally fully acknowledged and made good to the best degree he could).

But, during the initial stages of the problem I was quite upset. Someone happened to mention what a good golfer the C.P.A. was, and started telling me his recent scores, exploits on the green, etc.

I (quite rudely) interjected, "Please don't tell me what a great golfer John is, or anything else about him. I can't give him credit for anything right now."

It was a frustrated human reaction. I did not literally mean that he could not be a good golfer because as a CPA he mishandled some issues on my matters.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 9:31 pm

I heard from an MP at a regional firm that they expect starting associate salaries to increase soon. Has anyone heard similar?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:00 pm

Speaking of Family law, here's an old exam essay topic from the NV bar.

As they say: discuss

https://dailystormer.su/victorias-secret-embraces-ugliness-signaling-that-the-porno-age-is-already-over/

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:00 pm

Obamacare was one big wealth transfer (or as traitorous Roberts might say, tax) from the middle class to big pharma, big insurance, and the useful idiots at the lower end of society. And it made the practice of medicine more miserable. What a legacy for that grifter in chief.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:05 pm

1:56—Yes 1:34 is a bit pompous and takes this all too seriously.

People can and are casual and joking on this blog, and that is often entertaining.

But despite 1:34 being somewhat pompous and anal retentive, I think 1:34 makes a valid point.

And it's a point I need to remember as I do have that tendency. I am sometimes dismissive of someone and their skill and knowledge in a certain area if I am upset with them as to how they performed or behaved in some other aspect of their life.

I realize that is unfair, but I Tend to do that.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 10:34 pm

OMG!
You folks are verbose today. Inane topics (except for the mostly valid SBN criticisms).
Get back to work.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 11:51 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

No! It is Juneteenth weekend, mate. Go party. Post wild and crazy things. Be merry.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 11:02 pm

I worked for Judge Moss as her law clerk many, many years ago. I feel a little liberated to speak as she has retired. As a person, she was extremely nice and caring. As a Judge, she was not on the studious legal scholar side but was on the end of the spectrum of morality (not that they are mutually exclusive, etc.). She would always try to do what was right and not necessarily what the case law would require. This is not necessarily bad in my opinion in Family Law. Most Judges down there made decisions and tried to pigeon hole them into the law. Judge Moss was more honest. Yes, her handling of the schedule was infuriating and she would be longggggg overdue to the point people would think I was exaggerating were I to say by how much. She agonized over many decisions. In the final analysis, I feel a little defensive of her as in my heart I know she was a good, moral person. Was she a great Judge? I guess that depends on one's criteria but I would probably say she was not a legal scholar but benefited thousands of children by making the right call usually. As far as the gambling work, etc. – I don't fault anyone who is trying to better anything and certainly don't hold her long hearings against her. There have been so many rotten Judges down there Del Vechio, Potter, Donninger, etc. that in hindsight she probably stands out even more. Just my humble, but informed, opinion.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 11:21 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

That is terrific but since you were her law clerk and presumably a practicing attorney now you understand. While you "certainly don't hold her long hearings against her," my clients did and held it equally against me. When my client is paying me $700 extra per hearing to have to sit around waiting for hearings to conclude just so she could reach what she felt to be a well -reasoned decision, that is not justice. That broke alot of parties who appeared in front of her. Time is money in the law.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 18, 2021 12:27 am
Reply to  Anonymous

4:21–I realize the new video hearings will not totally eliminate that problem(as you still need to log in and be ready for the assigned time of the hearing, and not leave the area) but the new video hearings should greatly reduce a lot of these problems.

No more spending a couple hours, after waking, getting prepared for the day and then battling traffic and getting stuck behind accidents. And no more waiting two or three hours in the courtroom or corridors while waiting for your hearing because the judge is so behind.

So, there are still waiting and logistic problems, but not nearly as bad in my view.

When we did have to come down to court and wait for hearings, which did you prefer–that you get to sit in the courtroom and listen to the other cases when you wait for your hearing, or do prefer when you were banished to the hallways because the couple hearings before yours are closed hearings?

Generally, I would prefer the banishment to the hallways as you could at least chat with other attorneys, play on our phones, or whatever.

But the down side of that(particularly a Family Court case) is that the clients would have a couple extra hours, with us as a captive audience, to drone on about their case and dive even deeper into increasingly useless, and completely irrelevant, minutae(e.g "let's see, what have I not yet covered? Oh yeah..I never told you about how she did not afford my then fiancé full and proper respect during a child exchange during Easter 2014..or was it 2013?").

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 18, 2021 12:33 am
Reply to  Anonymous

5:27–that's why I accept very few Family Law case.

The last time I handled one(about two years ago) I was sitting behind a case that took over an hour for a motion argument, and included the exact inane argument that you reference–some idiot was complaining that his wife(who he just separated from) needs to be a lot more respectful to his fiancé(read: the girl he has been sleeping with the last two weeks, and who may not even be around a month from now, as the guy conceded he has had three fiances over the last eight months, even though he just separated from his wife five weeks earlier).

And, yes, it was an attorney offering these "arguments", not juts some clueless guy struggling to represent himself.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 18, 2021 12:55 am
Reply to  Anonymous

From a personal perspective I like the cattle call because I get to see how the judge thinks and how other attorneys argue. From a skill developmental standpoint the cattle calls are great. From a client and attorney time management perspective cattle calls suck big time. I don't understand how any court manager (presiding judge and the actual departmental judges) can believe the cattle call is a good thing. For goodness sake set the hearings for appropriate intervals and engage in some time management. Quite frankly if you need 2 hours for an MSJ hearing someone has not done their job. How could anyone possibly think having to wake up and actually shower (I now appreciate "soft focus" for aging actors), drive downtown, park, go through security, wait for the elevator, wait to get called, have the hearing, walk back to the car, drive back to the office was efficient?

P.S. I am also saving time on ironing (although I found ironing bit therapeutic) and polishing my shoes. Which leads me to another point, some of y'alls shoes were dog crap.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 17, 2021 11:18 pm

I just want to point out how ridiculous it is to announce on June 17th that the entire Federal Government is going to shut down on June 18th and that you should too. I am fine with having a June holiday (we don't have one since Flag Day was downgraded) but lets start in 2021 when we have time to plan.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 18, 2021 4:26 pm

Juneteenth
Did anyone consider the direct and indirect costs of a new holiday that few had ever heard of until recently? Direct cost from paying federal employees another holiday is estimated between 600 and 700 million. Add in the federal contractors who will also have to take the day and we exceed 1 Billion. Not considered here are the indirect costs as over time private enterprise will start to add in the day. ALL OF WHICH IS PAID FOR BY BORROWED DEBT.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
June 18, 2021 4:49 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Is Columbus Day still a paid federal holiday? Let's nix that one.