- Quickdraw McLaw
- 70 Comments
- 212 Views
As one of our astute readers noted in the comments yesterday, sometime on Monday afternoon the blog reached the 3,000,000 page view mark. Thanks for visiting the site. Keep it up and soon we might be among the 100,000 most popular websites in the U.S.
- Judge Susan Johnson told some felons that they might have their voting rights restored in time to vote for President Trump in 2020. [TNI]
- DA Steve Wolfson kicked off his reelection campaign yesterday. [RJ]
- UNLV’s Boyd School of Law saw a big jump in its bar passage rate. [RJ]
- Judge James Mahan denied a request from pharmaceutical companies trying to block a Nevada law requiring them to detail diabetes drug prices. [RJ]
- MGM Resorts is the new owner of WNBA Stars and the team will take up residence next season at Mandalay Bay Events Center. [Las Vegas Sun]
Welcome to Utah folks, hold onto your butts. 81% is shameful and an obvious ploy to please the AG and law school.
This is bad for the profession and public, but it won't become like Utah. For those unfamiliar, Utah has an extraordinary glut of attorneys. I don't think you can blame their easy bar exam, however. Law is one of the most common professions that the sons of suburban middle to upper class Mormons aspire to. Plus, people want to return to Zion. As a result, a lot of first year attorneys in Utah make as little as $40k per year. Seasoned attorneys struggle to break into six figures. I don't see a similar dynamic in Las Vegas to be honest.
The big firms in Utah pay similar to the big firms in LAs VEgas. The difference is that while the legal market in Vegas is small, Salt Lake City's legal market is even smaller. There's less litigation in Utah too. That's one reason why BYU law grads end up in cities all over the country, and national firm recruiting at BYU Law is robust. Certainly much more so than the Boyd School of Law and Acupuncture.
I wasn't aware that seasoned attorneys in Utah have trouble making six figures. Hourly rates are a little bit lower than VEgas, but not much. Attorney pay, both associate and partner is also similar.
It is true that law is one of the most common professions that the sons (and even daughters now) of suburban middle and upper class Mormons aspire to.
I am one of those sons of suburban middle-class Mormons and I ended up going to Boyd for law school. When I got out of law school I originally thought about practicing in Utah, but most of the jobs I applied for were offering at least 30% less in starting salary than the jobs here in Vegas. My starting job here was at $70k/yr. I got an offer to start at a smallish law firm in Salt Lake at $45k/yr. I could have stayed at UPS and made about the same amount without all the student loan debt.
10:46 couldn't get into BYU so had to settle to be Boyd 13, not that there's any shame in that.
Why is the pay in Utah so much smaller? Cost of living is about the same (i think) and there's always personal injury and ID no matter where you go, so I am confused why they offer $40k. that is quite insulting for a big city pay.
@11:18 – More supply, less demand. Utah has two top 50 law schools that serve the same metropolitan area. Plus, you have plenty of BYU and Utah undergrads who go to better law schools but still want to return to Utah to practice. For a while (and maybe still), Kirton McConkie in Salt Lake held a spot open every year for a Stanford grad because they always knew there would be Mormon applicants from their wanting to come back.
I am product of the Utah schools and I initially wanted to practice there. I couldn't get a job. A friend of mine, top 10 in our class, had offers from Kirtland & Ellis in Chicago and Latham in LA, but he didn't have a single offer from one of the bigger Salt Lake firms. He went to LA.
10:46,
Greetings, fellow member of the Sons of Zeezrom!
10:46.. you should have stayed with UPS… better hours, decent pay and a defined benefits pension when your done. Add to that, greater respect by the public…
The piece on Susan Johnson was more about finding controversy where there is none. I've been present a couple times when she's made that comment and it was clearly a joke. Most people took it that way. Unfortunately, she's not a real funny person and she has mediocre comedic delivery. I don't recall any time when it seemed like an actual recommendation to vote for Trump.
I do not think it is a joke. Team Johnson are solid conservatives, who I bet my poker chips on voted for Trump.
She is mean on the bench and appears to have zero sense of humor (at least on the bench). She is also an on-the-record supporter of republicans. IF, she intended it as a joke, then add DUMB to the list of negative attributes she possesses. Clearly an ethical violation (albeit a small one). She should have known better. Maybe this was a calculated political ploy to make sure she gets republican votes in her next election.
Or maybe a political ploy for a Federal seat (which is my suspicion).
This would have to disqualify her…
Disqualify her with a Republican Senate and Trump in the White House? In the Federal system as the legislative and executive branches are situated, she would in no manner be disqualified.
Unless of course Cortez-Masto pulls a repayment to Heller of his refusal to sign off on the blue slip like he did to Cadish.
We already have plenty of terrible lawyers, so why not invite more to the party!
Truth. Sadly, those who pass after the bar was dumbed down make us all look bad. One more reason I'm considering leaving the law.
I wonder what Mandalay Bay will call their new team? The Sharpshooters? too soon?
Way too soon and not really even funny.
https://www.salon.com/2015/06/23/10_careers_with_the_most_psychopaths_per_capita_partner/
Not really a sharpshooter anyway, more of a "spray and pray." You know, like, he can't dunk but has good fundamentals.
If your going to use gallows humor,the correct name would be the "Las Vegas Snipers". Of course, I agree it's way too soon for that kind of humor..
If you're going to make extraordinarily tasteless jokes far too soon after a tragedy, at least try to make them clever. 8:54 fails miserably. 10:06 has a solid joke there.
“This is good news,” said Dan Hamilton, the law school’s dean. “This shows significant improvement. And I’m grateful to the leadership of the Supreme Court of Nevada in carefully considering how the Nevada bar exam is structured and how it best serves its purpose of serving Nevadans.”
Let me translate: "Thank the Lord the Nevada Supreme Court made the bar exam easier so a larger percentage of our students can pass. I was really nervous that our rankings were going to fall because we've been lowering the bar to maintain enrollment numbers, or that we'd have to decrease class size to maintain student body quality and bar passage rates. Now we can maintain our tuition revenue stream without maintaining admissions standards and no one will ever be the wiser! Thanks Nevada Supreme Court for insulating the law school from the consequences of its actions. Everybody wins! Well, except the public. We ARE unleashing bad attorneys on the public. Screw the public. Oh, and the legal profession. We're going to further tighten the legal job market and erode public confidence in the profession by flooding it with marginally qualified attorneys. Screw the legal profession, too."
We must protect academic sinecures at all costs! (Even if the cost is born by the public through incompetent attorneys and by taxpayers through defaulted federal student loans).
That translation is spot on.
Thanks 9:02. You speak the truth.
Thanks, 9:07. You also get it.
The Dean of UNLV Boyd has indicated his agenda. The adoption of the Uniform Bar Exam which tests no Nevada law and will bring reciprocity. Reciprocity will only work one way and bring Nevada about 10,000 more foreign lawyers stealing our business. Boyd does well on the bar exam. This should put the debate about how tough the bar exam is to rest.
Here is the problem: I have also been in Johnson's courtroom where she makes these comments in that condescending tone. It is not clear that she is joking; it is at best a "kidding, not kidding" type statement. The reason that it is a patent violation of the Judicial Canons is that for a Defendant who has his freedom at issue, he is not hearing and discerning jokes and sarcasm. She does not say she is kidding; she says you get your freedoms back to vote for Trump. It is frightening and way outside of what is permissible. And the thing is (and as has been discussed on this Blog numerous times) she really does support Trump.
I think it's supposed to be an ironic joke. Trump is perceived as a tough-on-crime, anti-socialist guy. You wouldn't expect a probably welfare-dependent felon to vote for him. I think it's funny, but it does detract from the dignity of the office to make a joke at the expense of the criminal defendant before you, and it's just a bad idea for a supposedly neutral judge to make any kind of political joke at all.
If that is the case 9:12, that is even worse. If the Johnsons (because lets not pretend that Eric is not a member of the Gestapo also–he just lacks a sense of humor) view criminal defendants who stand before them all as "welfare-dependent felons", well then they are not merely political hacks but biased political hacks. For example Galazin is a Republican, with a job living in Overton. If Johnson just viewed him as a "welfare-dependent felon", then she needs to be off of the bench.
However the implication is far more insidious I fear. Trump is perceived not as tough-on-crime but has someone who will scratch any back that will scratch his– if you agree to commit your vote for Trump you can have your rights back so you are going to vote for Trump aren't you?
I personally do not like her as a judge. She always speaks to parties and counsel in a very condescending tone. Even if this was intended as a tongue-in-cheek remark (and I would have to see the context and would want to know if it happened more than once), it is completely inappropriate when someone's freedom is at stake and she should know better. And whether someone is on welfare or not on welfare is irrelevant.
Bulla is nasty for no reason.
Is showing bias on the record reversible error?
@2:14 – it can be.
2:06 Truth. She seems to absolutely hate her job and everyone in her presence.
Curious that the Alexis Plunkett contributions to this Blog a few days ago have been scrubbed from the thread.
Take that stuff to the appropriate FB page(s).
Someone please make a separate blog where we can go back to the good old days of personal insults and calling people (like Kutner) douches. What ever happened in that lawsuit anyway? Did the blogger's identity ever get found?
Right up there with strange Doug Ansell
The blogger answered the lawsuit, so somebody knows who she is. Me personally, I will never forgive Kutner for the demise of wild wild law, which was far superior to LVLB in every aspect. Legal Eagle, Elle, whoever you are… Please please please bring back WWL.
9:31 here, Yes, wild wild law blog it was. I can never forgive Kutner for that either. Also, his commercials are unforgivable.
Kutner's death stare glance in his ads are creepy
Having to watch Kutner on that Zamboni is worse than his TV ads. Wonder if he got the Zamboni approved by the SBN.
The blogger answered the Kutner lawsuit but I believe without disclosing his/her identity. I think the party was 'Legal Eagle' instead of the person's name.
You are all just jealous that he knows how his opponents think.
It is only because he used to be his own opponent.
Hey 9:31 AM…. Why don't you create the blog you want?
4:39, because I'm not a blogger and wouldn't know where to start. Also, I don't have time for that. I got billable hours to input.
Serious question, can anyone recommend a physical therapy expert?
You might be able to find something in this case: HALLMARK v. ELDRIDGE
Graders know who test-takers than went to Boyd and those that didnt?
There was a secret code word
Don'tfailmeI'mfromBoyd ?
Judges should apply the rule of law, and allow counsel to make their record and their arguments. Stop being so damn nasty. Being on the bench is not about your ego. It is about the case.
@11:124 you must name names!
I agree.
Many love to give legal advice to pro se litigants from the bench. But, that is well known. so I am adding nothing to the conversation.
Most of EJDC are like this. Who isn't?
So Johnson has come out and said that it was merely a joke.
UPDATE Wednesday, Oct. 18, at 10:26 a.m.:
"Susan Johnson told The Nevada Independent on Wednesday that she meant for the comments to put probationers 'at ease', and that she hadn’t heard anyone complain or express concerns. 'It was just an off comment,' she said at a meeting of Hispanics in Politics. 'Looking back on it, I should have just said, ‘You can vote for the president.’ Instead, I was just trying to invoke some humor and using the name of the current president.' . . . As I indicated to you early, no one has expressed any problems before, any concerns before, they’ve laughed,' she said. “I think that they took it as a joke as well. And I’m sorry if offended anyone.'"
Take these comments in the context of the #metoo discussions over the past few days. "Well no one complained [to the Judge who was holding their liberty in her hands]." Gee, wonder why? "Hey I was just an extremely serious topic and making an ass out of myself because I can. Sure I used my condescending power and authority to violate the Judicial Canons while people are having the worst day of their life but what is the big deal?"
Who the hell cares about a stupid joke or statement from the bench? Judas Priest nothing like making a mountain out of a molehill.
One woman's joke is another woman's violation of multiple judicial canons against people with their liberty at stake.
Rule 2.3. Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment.
(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon. . . political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge’s direction and control to do so.
Rule 2.4. External Influences on Judicial Conduct.
(B) A judge shall not permit. . . political…or other interests or relationships to influence the judge’s judicial conduct or judgment.
(C) A judge shall not convey or permit others to convey the impression that any person or organization is in a position to influence the judge.
Rule 4.1. Political and Campaign Activities of Judges and Judicial Candidates in General.
(A) Except as permitted by law, or by Rules 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4, a judge or a judicial candidate shall not:
* * * *
(3) publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for any public office;
Nobody objected? Of course not. They were waiting to hear the client’s fate.
No Forthcoming Opinions.
The NSC is a bitter disappointment. The citizens of Nevada deserve ambition and drive from the justices.
The appellate courts make no guarantee that every advance opinion listed as forthcoming will be published as indicated. On rare occasions, the publishing of an advance opinion may be delayed at the last minute for administrative reasons.
MOST WEEKS, the appellate courts will issue no opinions.
With the understanding that the Court actually claims, "Some weeks, the appellate courts will issue no opinions" you are correct 7:51. Most weeks we get nothing. This week, instead of anything substantive, we got a 1 page Order Denying Writ and a 1 Page Order Dismissing Appeal. Strong work!
TNI finally posted the video on Johnson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JJrdIRib6A