- Quickdraw McLaw
- 24 Comments
- 695 Views
- Here are some bills that died at the Legislature’s second house passage deadline. [TNI]
- A’s struggle in Carson City as Golden Knights advance to Stanley Cup Final. [Nevada Current]
- What else is happening on this very Monday-feeling Tuesday after Memorial Day?
The bar’s diversity survey is idiotic.
Diversity is idiotic. DEI, ESG and CRT and worthless. Just hire/promote based on merit.
Tell me how you hire/promote the best lawyer based on merit. If there is any component of it that is subjective then you are making you are probably employing some diversity consideration (then elimination based on your preferences) that you subvert with sayings like "I just pick the best man for the job."
In the practice of law, isn't "merit" wholly subjective in any event?
^Win percentage is questionable because of the judge / jury factors.
^Hours billed is kind of psycho to follow because, you have to evaluate the numbers for realism and reasonableness.
^Personality and team player is also subjective.
Several years ago, I fired a lawclerk at the same time as I promoted and gave a raise to one of his classmates (Boyd Grads!!) because our communication did not gel with how he understood and executed my basic instructions. I know that it was simply a SNAFU with regard to our communication and was not necessarily his fault. He went on to become a successful practitioner and a great lawyer and I loved working the occasional case with him.
See? Subjectivity is the only way to judge "Merit".
I just responded with the option that stated I didn't consent to take the survey. Hopefully, those who find DEI offensive will do the same. Send a message to the state bar. Cultural Marxism, as is DEI, is always dressed in flowery, benign words.
So, clearly, based on their responses, 2:08 and 2:51 only promote based on color of skin and what's between a person's legs. #Sad
3:10 must believe that was never the case.
I'm sure 3:10 does as well, but with remarkable consistency regarding skin color and between the legs equipment.
@251 here.
Show me where I said or implied that one of the Objective Characteristics you mention even remotely were a consideration. Because you are a schmuck, the "fired" law clerk was a hetero white male and the retained law clerk colleague of his was a black male of ambiguous sexual preference, as I never bothered to ask.
If you see prejudice or sexism everywhere, then you are the problem. Because as someone often says on this blog, Nobody GAF about those things.
@3:52 Soooo you did bother to ask the white guy his sexual preference, but not the black guy? Did you not ask because you are racist, or because you're just not into doing black guys?
Sorry, I meant @3:25 not @3:52. Also, please don't use "schmuck" unless you are actually Jewish. It's cultural appropriation to do so.
Would you prefer s/he use "putz" or "schmeckle" instead?
@328 Actually, I met the fired white law clerk's wife when she stopped by the office once. Objectively, I did not have to ask. Though I may be guilty of assuming gender and sexual preference based on objectively observed criteria in a purely subjective manner, of course.
Hey, again, what happened to I'm Going to Sue SBN in Wrong Jurisdiction Guy. He said he'd do it in March; it's now almost June. Oh yeah, he won't be rushed, is consulting with other lawyer, etc. All talk.
Dear 1:30 – your postings are funny trying to bait me – keep posting – no one cares (probably about your postings or my suit actually) – if you would ask an intelligent question, perhaps we could chat – but your tone is angry. Do you have any idea how complicated a federal lawsuit against a quasi-governmental agency is? Every turn my arguments make (even though morally correct) there is another problem, it is very, very difficult and I simply will not be rushed by an anon poster. I will say though, that I believe I do have a winning argument and as I am very excited I will tell you it involves the EPC and lawyers being proxies for protected classes. Exciting stuff, at least to me. Have a good rest of your week.
Yawn.
I don't see 1:30 post as angry. He's laughing at you.
@130
The moral of the story is Don't be a Dick, Dick!
–Xander Cage
@230 = @130
Dude, if your case fundamentally has no legal merit — whether or not you believe it is "morally correct" — you can take all the time in the world but that won't help. How is this for an intelligent question: what is your legal theory?
There tekkin are jobs!
As far as this business about suing the State Bar over differing and unequal treatment, let's ignore these insults back and forth and just take a more clear look at all this.
How could there really be multiple instances where the facts of two cases are virtually identical, but the discipline is dramatically different, and it can clearly be determined that the lighter disciplined person is a juiced-in big firm a-hole, and that the harsher disciplined person is a small practitioner(these are highly subjective determinations).
And even if you somehow clawed through all that(which seems undoable) there are a gazzillion other considerations that alter things even if you have a minor miracle where the case facts, and alleged violations, of both cases are virtual identical(and they do need to be virtually identical, not just "pretty similar").
These other considerations(even if the case facts and alleged violations are almost identical, which they never will be) include other matters which will always vary–prior discipline, any mitigating or aggravating factors, level of legal experience ,etc.).
This is just the tip of the iceberg as to why such a lawsuit would fail.
That said, I am not disagreeing with the premise that the small practitioner is often at a real disadvantage when facing discipline, when compared to those of prestigious, large firms).
Ganz is by far the strongest of these 3 (although Hawley has never been rejected for a District Court position).
@1:41 – Define "strongest"