I've been receiving emails about the BoG candidates, but hope to receive more information on how the candidates feel about the location and expense of the state bar convention, the disciplinary process, possible changes to the bar exam process, and other substantive issues. Likewise, if candidates think the state bar is functioning effectively and want to keep everything pretty much the same, I would appreciate knowing that information.
I sent out an email today (after receiving the email list from the bar) that explains my position on some of these issues in more detail and I am happy to answer questions here or privately. I will say that I am a long time reader of this blog and I share a lot of the concerns that I have read throughout the years. As a general matter I am opposed to reciprocity or changes to the current bar exam process, I think that there is at least a perception that discipline is not being applied equally and that needs to be investigated, I think the state bar convention should be held in Nevada in part so more solos/small firm attorneys can attend, and I think that the bar is in need of reform from within, hence why I am taking time away from work and family to run. I am happy to see that other candidates like Ben feel the same on some of these issues so hopefully one of us gets in. Sorry I am not more well known, but I encourage anyone to reach out to the lawyers I regularly work with, mostly people in the cannabis space, for their opinions of me.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 5:28 pm
Most of the current BOG are out of touch with small firm needs and do not represent the majority of practitioners needs and concerns. These venues that they pick are not designed for solos to attend and are cost prohibitive. Would love to hear more from the candidates on these issues.
“Anonymous” but don’t ever look for an actual count of who got how many votes.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 5:34 pm
Have not received my ballot yet. Voting for Andrew Craner. He is the only one who is looking out for the members. We need others but he is a good advocate for the solos and small firm lawyers. I have to think about the other candidates.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 5:50 pm
Look at Coffing's bio. He has the OBC tracking grievances by firm size, we may get some statistics to address the concern that Solo and small firms are being "targeted"
Ben ran once in 2020. There was a major event that year that interfered with a lot of campaigning. If you think hard, you might recall. Anyways, I’m voting for Ben. If anyone on this blog has questions about him, I suggest you call him. He’s a great guy and will do a great job representing small and solo practitioners. VOTE FOR BEN!
4:27 and 4:44-Okay, we can disagree with his unqualified support of Assad, and we can think of him, and his ego, whatever we want to think.
But this BOG election is not about how much we like certain people(or it shouldn't be). Look at wat 1:12, 1:18, and 1:58 posted. They are absolutely right that Nadig, in his written statement, is the only one who took any chances or said anything of substance. You know exactly where he stands in that he thinks the current state of affairs is dreadful, and is extremely unfair to the small practitioner.
He is also the first one to point out that our bar dues should not be used to send BOG members on expensive junkets and vacations, thinly disguised as "seminars" or "conferences."
So, at least Nadig represents an important protest vote.
And his photo(a fusion of secret agent and blues brother) is real cool.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 6:18 pm
Maggie Lambrose is a good candidate. She has been a solo, in a firm and in government practice (FPD). She's done both civil and criminal.
She has not stated what are the issues at the Bar and she has been endorsed by the current Board President who does nothing for small firms. What is she proposing to do?
No on Lambrose. Why did she leave a successful private practice to follow John Lambrose (father?) at Federal PD Suspect she will promote progressive agenda at State Bar like DEI. Big issue will be mandatory pro bono. When you are in private practice you work for free everyday. She is endorsed by Paola Armeni a very progressive board member who pushed
DEI.
The Bar's DEI program is a joke considering most of the firms are stroking their egos. So, they are supposed to get a badge of honor for doing the right thing. LMAO. Paola Armeni is about herself and nobody else. She is not a progressive. You hit the nail on the coffin, private practice is a whole different dialogue.
The problem with DEI is that it is discrimination and eliminates merit in selection and hiring. It is all about checking the box. Mandatory pro bono will be a big issue. Most of the candidates sound like they running for high school or college student government.
I'm not sure the DEI is reverse discrimination, but there are legitimate concerns. It's devolved into a secular whited sepulchure. It is more about saying and doing the right things than actually actively combating the systemic racism in society. It cannot be questioned, which is part of why it rolls forth, unobstructed. It has its own dogmas, and if you question them, you are racist.
Ah yes, because surely someone's decision to leave private law and go government can only be attributed to spreading the woke ideology of *checks notes* diversity and inclusion. I am begging some of you to go outside right now and touch grass.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 6:42 pm
I suspect more RPC violations occur at small firms because they simply cannot implement the processes that are in place at big firms to prevent them. But I bet the violations at the Big Firms are real doozies when they happen.
There are more at small firms because they are dealing with a different clientele that will file a complaint over a couple thousand dollars, also they get lots of trust account violations. Big firms get less bar complaints because their clients file malpractice claims.
All true. Except you forgot two factors. Large firm partners have influential contacts. OBC thinks twice, thrice, before going after a large firm. Large firm cases against an individual attorney can be more complex and harder to prove. (not my fault, the first year assoc was handling that file, my paralegal did it, etc)
Large firms have so many influential contacts and in this town and that matters. Dan Hooge is a woos and doesn't have the balls to go after anyone in a large firms plus he wanted to become a Judge in District Court, another social climber.
Benjamin Nadig for Board of Governors, 2023. “The Right Man, For The Right Job!”
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 8:12 pm
I read all 13 profiles, and the large majority of them just consist of worthless platitudes and tired cliches.
But of the 13, there were 3 exceptions worth noting.
1. Mr. Nadig's approach is refreshing in its unflinching candor, as well as being quite entertaining. That all said, his points are quite well-taken.
2. Ms. Kristin Shuler-Hintz seems to have taken a somewhat unconventional approach–not in the written content but in the photo. which emphasizes her dog more than it emphasizes her. As I too am a dog lover, I find it really cool.
3. Sheila Tajbakhsh(who happens to be a very bright, conscientious and hard-working young attorney) looks incredibly stunning. And since people(including voters) are highly visual and often emphasize appearance over ability(as bad as that sounds), it never hurts to be so beautiful–whether one be male or female.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 8:18 pm
12:18 and 1:12–As you both suggest, perhaps he should be supported.
He doesn't seem to actually want the position(and seems in fact to hold it somewhat in contempt). Sometimes the person who actually doesn't want the position represents a legitimate agent of change.
He seems to want to swing the wrecking ball and knock it all down and re-build from scratch. And it seems hundreds of small practitioners, with no real voice, feel the same way.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 8:58 pm
As 1:12 points out, only one out of thirteen(Mr.Nadig) takes any sort of chances as to the written material, and, his humor aside, actually makes points worth noting.
Of the other 12, don't complain if you support them and you wind up with more of the same, as they are essentially telegraphing to you that we will have more of the same if they are elected.
Many brag of their supposed accomplishments, and essentially promise us that their goal is that the BOG continues to operate as it has. The few that suggest they may consider some changes, are vague to the point of their comments being useless-such as the tired yarn about the BOG should be responsive to its members.
And of course it should be, but someone who offers no details as to what that responsiveness should look like, is someone who will not be responsive to members of the Bar but will merely carry the water for more veteran and influential members of the board.
Again, whatever one may or may not think personally of Mr. Nadig, he is the only one who offered an intelligible dialogue and some food for thought. The others offer no more substance than if they were running for High School student council.
I like Will personally and his career achievements speak for themselves, but I was not impressed by his boilerplate statements about DEI and AI. I'd like the bar to focus on not cultivating an adversarial relationship with the licensees it regulates before turning to more high-minded issues.
No on Andrew. I think he wanted to stand up for little guys. But he didn't. He became a system guy because he wanted to be liked by the BoG. I like you Andrew personally. But you let many of us down.
I've been receiving emails about the BoG candidates, but hope to receive more information on how the candidates feel about the location and expense of the state bar convention, the disciplinary process, possible changes to the bar exam process, and other substantive issues. Likewise, if candidates think the state bar is functioning effectively and want to keep everything pretty much the same, I would appreciate knowing that information.
I sent out an email today (after receiving the email list from the bar) that explains my position on some of these issues in more detail and I am happy to answer questions here or privately. I will say that I am a long time reader of this blog and I share a lot of the concerns that I have read throughout the years. As a general matter I am opposed to reciprocity or changes to the current bar exam process, I think that there is at least a perception that discipline is not being applied equally and that needs to be investigated, I think the state bar convention should be held in Nevada in part so more solos/small firm attorneys can attend, and I think that the bar is in need of reform from within, hence why I am taking time away from work and family to run. I am happy to see that other candidates like Ben feel the same on some of these issues so hopefully one of us gets in. Sorry I am not more well known, but I encourage anyone to reach out to the lawyers I regularly work with, mostly people in the cannabis space, for their opinions of me.
Most of the current BOG are out of touch with small firm needs and do not represent the majority of practitioners needs and concerns. These venues that they pick are not designed for solos to attend and are cost prohibitive. Would love to hear more from the candidates on these issues.
Are ballots anonymous?
Supposedly except for the part where they say "Feel free to update your email address here".
“Anonymous” but don’t ever look for an actual count of who got how many votes.
Have not received my ballot yet. Voting for Andrew Craner. He is the only one who is looking out for the members. We need others but he is a good advocate for the solos and small firm lawyers. I have to think about the other candidates.
Look at Coffing's bio. He has the OBC tracking grievances by firm size, we may get some statistics to address the concern that Solo and small firms are being "targeted"
Please tell me how to find the "OBC tracking." Thank you.
2:59 hereby withdraws his/her question as I see Coffing/OBC has just started tracking this
No more free lunches
I don't know the Ben Nadig character, but hot damn that's an entertaining bio. I chuckled at "absolutely not."
*this
I am voting for BEN!
Vote for Ben!
Nadig's full-throated "he's a good ol' boy" defense of George Assad when Lombardo appointed Assad to the Gaming Control Board (in comments on this blawg) raised questions about whether Nadig's sense of right and wrong is properly calibrated. Assad, meanwhile, is already proving his critics right. https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/gaming-regulator-draws-criticism-after-second-guessing-mgm-business-decisions
Nadig is a perpetual Also Ran for judicial office. Let's make him an Also Ran for the Board of Governors, too.
Ben ran once in 2020. There was a major event that year that interfered with a lot of campaigning. If you think hard, you might recall. Anyways, I’m voting for Ben. If anyone on this blog has questions about him, I suggest you call him. He’s a great guy and will do a great job representing small and solo practitioners. VOTE FOR BEN!
4:27 and 4:44-Okay, we can disagree with his unqualified support of Assad, and we can think of him, and his ego, whatever we want to think.
But this BOG election is not about how much we like certain people(or it shouldn't be). Look at wat 1:12, 1:18, and 1:58 posted. They are absolutely right that Nadig, in his written statement, is the only one who took any chances or said anything of substance. You know exactly where he stands in that he thinks the current state of affairs is dreadful, and is extremely unfair to the small practitioner.
He is also the first one to point out that our bar dues should not be used to send BOG members on expensive junkets and vacations, thinly disguised as "seminars" or "conferences."
So, at least Nadig represents an important protest vote.
And his photo(a fusion of secret agent and blues brother) is real cool.
Maggie Lambrose is a good candidate. She has been a solo, in a firm and in government practice (FPD). She's done both civil and criminal.
She has not stated what are the issues at the Bar and she has been endorsed by the current Board President who does nothing for small firms. What is she proposing to do?
No on Lambrose. Why did she leave a successful private practice to follow John Lambrose (father?) at Federal PD Suspect she will promote progressive agenda at State Bar like DEI. Big issue will be mandatory pro bono. When you are in private practice you work for free everyday. She is endorsed by Paola Armeni a very progressive board member who pushed
DEI.
The Bar's DEI program is a joke considering most of the firms are stroking their egos. So, they are supposed to get a badge of honor for doing the right thing. LMAO. Paola Armeni is about herself and nobody else. She is not a progressive. You hit the nail on the coffin, private practice is a whole different dialogue.
The problem with DEI is that it is discrimination and eliminates merit in selection and hiring. It is all about checking the box. Mandatory pro bono will be a big issue. Most of the candidates sound like they running for high school or college student government.
I'm not sure the DEI is reverse discrimination, but there are legitimate concerns. It's devolved into a secular whited sepulchure. It is more about saying and doing the right things than actually actively combating the systemic racism in society. It cannot be questioned, which is part of why it rolls forth, unobstructed. It has its own dogmas, and if you question them, you are racist.
Ah yes, because surely someone's decision to leave private law and go government can only be attributed to spreading the woke ideology of *checks notes* diversity and inclusion. I am begging some of you to go outside right now and touch grass.
I suspect more RPC violations occur at small firms because they simply cannot implement the processes that are in place at big firms to prevent them. But I bet the violations at the Big Firms are real doozies when they happen.
There are more at small firms because they are dealing with a different clientele that will file a complaint over a couple thousand dollars, also they get lots of trust account violations. Big firms get less bar complaints because their clients file malpractice claims.
All true. Except you forgot two factors. Large firm partners have influential contacts. OBC thinks twice, thrice, before going after a large firm. Large firm cases against an individual attorney can be more complex and harder to prove. (not my fault, the first year assoc was handling that file, my paralegal did it, etc)
Large firms have so many influential contacts and in this town and that matters. Dan Hooge is a woos and doesn't have the balls to go after anyone in a large firms plus he wanted to become a Judge in District Court, another social climber.
11:57 exactly!
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/11/climate/colorado-river-water-cuts-drought.html
Benjamin Nadig for Board of Governors, 2023. “The Right Man, For The Right Job!”
I read all 13 profiles, and the large majority of them just consist of worthless platitudes and tired cliches.
But of the 13, there were 3 exceptions worth noting.
1. Mr. Nadig's approach is refreshing in its unflinching candor, as well as being quite entertaining. That all said, his points are quite well-taken.
2. Ms. Kristin Shuler-Hintz seems to have taken a somewhat unconventional approach–not in the written content but in the photo. which emphasizes her dog more than it emphasizes her. As I too am a dog lover, I find it really cool.
3. Sheila Tajbakhsh(who happens to be a very bright, conscientious and hard-working young attorney) looks incredibly stunning. And since people(including voters) are highly visual and often emphasize appearance over ability(as bad as that sounds), it never hurts to be so beautiful–whether one be male or female.
12:18 and 1:12–As you both suggest, perhaps he should be supported.
He doesn't seem to actually want the position(and seems in fact to hold it somewhat in contempt). Sometimes the person who actually doesn't want the position represents a legitimate agent of change.
He seems to want to swing the wrecking ball and knock it all down and re-build from scratch. And it seems hundreds of small practitioners, with no real voice, feel the same way.
As 1:12 points out, only one out of thirteen(Mr.Nadig) takes any sort of chances as to the written material, and, his humor aside, actually makes points worth noting.
Of the other 12, don't complain if you support them and you wind up with more of the same, as they are essentially telegraphing to you that we will have more of the same if they are elected.
Many brag of their supposed accomplishments, and essentially promise us that their goal is that the BOG continues to operate as it has. The few that suggest they may consider some changes, are vague to the point of their comments being useless-such as the tired yarn about the BOG should be responsive to its members.
And of course it should be, but someone who offers no details as to what that responsiveness should look like, is someone who will not be responsive to members of the Bar but will merely carry the water for more veteran and influential members of the board.
Again, whatever one may or may not think personally of Mr. Nadig, he is the only one who offered an intelligible dialogue and some food for thought. The others offer no more substance than if they were running for High School student council.
One hundred percent true!! Voting for Ben Nadig!!
Yes. The only one who didn't sound like an AI chatbot that soaked up too much corporate speak.
Anyone else having issues with Attorney Portal today? Been throwing error codes at me all day.
Alarms going off and evacuating RJC
Yikes. Be safe everybody.
It is the world's tiniest water leak.
I recommend COFFING because he acknowledges that OBC should track firm size re discipline.
Coffing is a winner. When he rises to President, I am certain he will pick an excellent venue for the Annual Meeting.
Got my ballot today. Going to vote. Voted for Coffing, Craner, Nadiq and Sykes.
I like Will personally and his career achievements speak for themselves, but I was not impressed by his boilerplate statements about DEI and AI. I'd like the bar to focus on not cultivating an adversarial relationship with the licensees it regulates before turning to more high-minded issues.
No Andrew Craner
No on Andrew. I think he wanted to stand up for little guys. But he didn't. He became a system guy because he wanted to be liked by the BoG. I like you Andrew personally. But you let many of us down.
Third the no on Andrew Cramer. Too JudgeNevada Supreme Court sympathi.
If I get all my votes to count for Ben, I would only vote for him!