- Quickdraw McLaw
- 19 Comments
- 226 Views
- In its final opinions of the term, the new ideological division of the U.S. Supreme Court in a couple of 6-3 decisions. [SCOTUSblog]
- The Nevada Supreme Court is considering whether a new trial is warranted in the case of a retired teacher on death row. [RJ]
- More than 200 new laws go into effect today. [TNI]
It's been six months and there are still some new judges I haven't appeared in front of. Can we hear how the new judges are doing now that they've been on the bench for a while? I'd especially like to hear practice pointers for appearing in front of them.
If you come to court prepared to argue your motion then it should not matter which judge you appear in front of. I know that sounds like a smart-ass comment, but it's true. Too many attorneys spend their time trying to game the judge rather than put in the extra time it takes to prepare. And if you are prepared, and the judge screws up the decision, your record is good and an appeal may lead to success. In addition, a reversal of the judge's decision on appeal means that you have effectively called-out the judge on their inability to make a proper ruling…at least on the particular matter. A double-victory for you.
Actually, I think too many attorney fail to take the extra time of craft their arguments in light of the judge who will be deciding the motion. I prepare the same amount of time regardless of the judge, but I just prepare differently. I would certainly argue a motion differently before Judge Israel than Judge Susan Johnson because they are two very different judges so you have to argue differently in front of them.
Yes because all clients can afford to pay for appeals and there is just an endless fountain of money pouring from their pockets into ours. Or we can share info we've learned the hard way and we can help our clients as much as possible in both our pleadings and how we handle the case based on the facts on the ground.
A good record for an appeal, maybe some, but we have the corrupt Nevada Supreme Court who gets an opinion right once a year, maybe?
10:48 "If you come to court prepared to argue your motion then it should not matter which judge you appear in front of."
We agree, it shouldn't. But this is Nevada….
And DMV and DETR should function 1000 times better than they do…Thanks SizzleLack.
Here is a practice pointer: Put your coat and tie on with Jay Young. Have heard him dress down lawyers on multiple occasions now for sports shirts on BlueJeans hearings.
I have heard him remind counsel that the administrative order requires courtroom appropriate attire when appearing on video and asks them to dress appropriately next time. "dress down"? no. nothing mean spirits
I always wear a tie. Usually not a jacket and never pants.
11:51–On video hearings, judicial officers are usually reasonably lax as to clothing standards–such as generally not requiring male attorneys to wear suits and ties provided they are reasonably attired, and not in torn, stained, grubbies, etc.
However, they tend to expect a bit formality when the attorneys appear live in court. That said, if a male attorney, at a live hearing, is in slacks, shoes and a nice sport shirt or golf shirt or the like, usually that is okay with most judges.
But if one does not know for certain how a judge will react at a live hearing, it is best to steal the judge's thunder by apologizing in advance–e.g. so sorry, I forgot I had this status check, didn't have time to go home and change etc.
But that excuse is not legitimate at video hearing. So, if you roll out of bed, and onto the video screen, wearing nothing but your skivvies, bleary-eyed,unshaven and hung-over, while Bambi the stripper is fully visible and still fast asleep next to you, the "I didn't have time to go home and dress properly" excuse will not be available.
Pre-pandemic, I was in the gallery when an old-school attorney that I admire burst through the doors late for a status check. He was wearing bermuda shorts and a tshirt, a kid you not. Great attorney, great person. Before he even reached the bar, he was apologizing to the Court. I vaguely remember that it was Ron Israel (but don't hold me to that) on the bench. Not a word was said after the apology. It was beautiful and crazy and I admire what he pulled off.
In 39 years of practice, I have twice appeared in court (live or video, even telephonic) without wearing a jacket and tie. Once, while I was waiting for court to begin, I was sitting in the Attorney Conference Room and an attorney knocked over a cup of coffee and it spilled on my suit jacket. I didn't don the wet and coffee-stained jacket.
Another time, in that same Attorney Conference Room, I hung my suit jacket over a chair back and went to talk to a friend. Ten minutes later, my jacket was missing! After court, I went back to the Conference Room and the person who had taken my jacket had returned it, throwing it on one of the tables. I guess the "borrowing" was inadvertent on his part, simple a case of grabbing the wrong jacket.
Right now, as I am sitting in my office (wearing slacks and a golf shirt), I have three pressed white dress shirts, a suit, a dark gray sports jacket (along with multiple ties and two black belts) hanging in my office closet, just in case I need to run into court (live or telephonic). Appearing properly attired is a simple matter of respect for the judge and the system.
Quick question, trying to help out a friend. They got a round up settlement that is six figures. They need to open an estate here in Nevada to get the check. I suspect when all of the math is done that they will net out about 100k, maybe a little more, maybe a little less. I am figuring that I need to open a special administration, then when we know the final amount, we can convert it to a set aside or a summary administration. I have done both before, but I have never converted a special into either. Once it is time to do so, I assume we just go through the normal process after the conversion is granted right? The estate is either set aside, or we start noticing creditors and move forward in a summary. Is that right? Am I missing something?
You hit the nail on the head. That's about it really.
No. You assign all of the damages to family members, $0 to the estate. Keep it all in special. There's no need to expose those funds to creditors.
7:00 here, 7:55 can you elaborate? would you just put in the petition that the estate is needed to finalize the settlement and give the funds to the widow? Is that what you mean by "keep it all in special."?
I practice 100% probate. Where I have an estate and the only asset is settlement proceeds, I never ever put it through administration. You get a special. Then you file a petition to approve the settlement. You submit in camera that 100% of the funds are non-probate assets going directly to the widow. This has to be in your settlement agreement though. The insurance company won't care because it doesn't effect their bottom line. Then you petition to discharge the special. And it's all done. No estate administration. No creditor period. No public record of how much your client received (or that it was your client specifically that received anything). With Love, 7:55 PM, your friendly neighborhood probate lawyer.
7:00 here. Excellent idea. Thank you.