- Quickdraw McLaw
- 21 Comments
- 66 Views
Earlier this week, Above the Law reported that NYC-based law firm Davis Polk was giving out some big fall bonuses that won’t replace the regular bonuses. Since Davis Polk doesn’t have a Las Vegas office yet, this news does not directly impact any of us, but it makes us wonder what all of you are hearing about the financial status of firms in Las Vegas. This year has been full of ups and downs, joblessness, layoffs, and now big bonuses. Are any of your firms doing better than ever? Are you still reeling from the shutdown? Anyone still struggling to find work after a COVID-19 layoff? What are your expectations for year end bonuses?
2021 is going to be yuge.
I think this is another case of the rich getting richer. All the mid-major firms I know of are implementing cost-cutting, and being as aggressive as possible on collections. This year I think we'll see 10 or so top firms give big bonuses, and the rest of the firms will just concede that they're not in the same league as the Davis Polks of the world.
So where are the millions of dollars in PPP (i.e., taxpayer) money that all these firms were given? Partners buying more new cars, boats, and vacation homes?
I dont think that you understand how the PPP works. You have to prove you have X number of employees and what they are paid (100k max) and your eligible expenses. If approved, the loan would be cancelled if you can show that you did not fire anyone and you used the money to pay employees and qualified expenses. As with any type of government program, there can be fraud, but I dont see any attorney who wants to keep their license scamming the PPP
Do not forget people that our Las Vegas Valley economy is not as diversified with other industries as bigger cities. Please note that gambling and construction are the two biggest. Areas like Silicon Valley and NYC have world class institutions of higher education and other industries tend to pop up around better universities. Law Firms feed off those diversified areas. We are not so lucky.
The legal opportunities here are different. Here, the opportunities are in personal injury, bankruptcy, family, and criminal. Other areas of the country do not have as many opportunities in those fields as we do here. Personal injury lawyers in other parts of the country do not make what the PI lawyers here make.
It is really fucking scary when federal attorneys do not know if an agency has jurisdiction or not.
I would say that I'm a "federal" attorney. I don't know what your comment specifically refers to. But I'm certain that I would need to do some background legal research before opining on the the specific statutory jurisdictional authority granted to any one of the countless federal agencies.
Changing topics,but some thoughts on the Judicial Discipline Matters:
1. Potter. The assertions involve sexual-type material that female judges and female staff found very offensive, so it is understandable on one level that the panel is proceeding. However, he is not running for re-election and will be long gone from office by the time this matter is heard. So, this matter should have been resolved by stipulation(e.g."I'm not running for re-election and agree to be permanently precluded from seeking any judicial position in the future.")
2. Earley. Complete waste of resources. She raises her voice and uses profanity to a Chief Judge and to staff, all out of the presence of the public. She also is retiring, and will be long gone by the time of any hearing. Issues could have been handed internally. A Commission charged with targeting real judicial corruption and judicial abuse should not be proceeding with this.
3.Scotti. He may well not get re-elected. He already got really publicly hammered by the NSC, so it all may be overkill. Perhaps the Commission can have him seek some impulse control counseling, so I guess that could be potentially beneficial. Also, let's call it what it is. "Throws a book" sounds awful and implies he threw a big hard-covered legal book at, or toward, the recalcitrant juror. It was actually a small, thin soft covered pamphlet that he tossed backwards, behind him. But, yes he went a bit bat shit.
4. Tobiasson. What a tangled web, and yes there are clearly issues with ethical implications. But the Commission should perhaps tread a little more lightly due to a huge built-in potential sympathy factor–she could not secure the law enforcement assistance she sought to protect her teen daughter from a prostitution ring.
My take on 12:47.
1. Potter. Agree in part. Agree that as a practical matter he will be gone by the time it's heard. But since it does involve material of an apparent sexual nature, it may be important to issue a decision–which can help guide others in the future as to what type of behavior is clearly not tolerated in the workplace. For starters, one merely should follow the general rule(no sexual statements or overtures to any other judges or staff members).
2. As to Earley, totally agree. Total waste of resources.
3. Scotti. I'm conflicted on this one. He deserves the judicial smackdown, but he already got barbecued by the NSC, in a manner which received wide public dissemination. I also agree that phraseology and details are important and can change how we view something. There is a nuance here. Hurling a Pacific Reporter toward a reluctant juror is much different than tossing that pamphlet over his shoulder.
4.Tobiassson. My path diverges from 12:47. Re-read the complaint, as well as all of the reporting on this matter. To garner real sympathy and support she will need to do a lot more than merely assert that her daughter was in danger of being recruited for a teen prostitution ring and that METRO would not really help.
After all, she goes a lot further than saying she couldn't get METRO to help her. She accuses METRO officials and officers of being in cahoots with dangerous criminals, etc. She also accuses certain people of murdering others, conducts her own investigations, kicks in a pimp's door, etc., etc, etc.(or at least all that is alleged).
That all said, I agree with 12:47 to the limited degree that if the Commission is convinced that her daughter was really in peril, and the judge could not get any real help from anybody, there may be a surprising degree of mitigation the commission members may consider when dealing with such a distraught mother acting on behalf of their endangered child. But again, that is "mitigation" of the impact of the behavior. I don't think in any sense the behavior will be "excused."
My firm did not make any cuts and paid out all bonuses.
12:47 and 1:13. I think three out of the four complaints are justified, to varying degrees, but agree that the Judge Earley one should not be a judicial ethics prosecution.
I work on a base and commissions. This is shaping up to be my best year ever. My stress is a combination of getting fatter, being overwhelmed with work pouring in, kids learning from home, the election, the fucking heat and the pandemic. I would gladly give up my gains this year to resume normal life again.
I want to file a judicial ethics complaint against Bonnie Bulla for some of her opinions she has authored lately. Eek, good science fiction novel. Give me another one.
Why does this blog allow boneheads to post crap like this? Any other judges you want to attack by name with unsubstantiated garbage? Cites? Science fiction? Eek? Nice going, Bush.
4:47 — What a jerk!
sounds like you played fast and loose with discovery and were often punished by then-commissioner Bulla for your bad acts. So sad you can't accept blame for your own actions.
447 sounds smart. Cannot stand Bonnie Bulla.
Agree with 12:42 and 10:33 — Accusing a judge of being unethical, without the balls to give any evidence to back it up. Not the kind of stuff this law blog should be tolerating. Gutless political assassination by incompetent trolls without a clue. Are we proud of ourselves yet?
Wow, that's a lot of nastiness. Who's got the popcorn?
My firm didn't get rid of anyone, and took PPP. They will use the pandemic as an excuse to not pay bonuses, which were never much anyway.