- Quickdraw McLaw
- 37 Comments
- 112 Views
- Do you want to volunteer to help foster children. [Fox5Vegas]
- Would you like to be a Las Vegas Justice Court Pro Tem Judge or Referee? [CCBA]
- How about a career as assistant bar counsel? [nvbar]
A Few Opportunities
- Law
- Posted on 7 years ago
I'll pass on Assistant Bar Counsel. Salary and benefits are not too bad in my view, but I don't want all my friends and colleagues to hate my guts and view me as the enemy.
Then don't be an enemy and actually do the job with some ethics, scruples, compassion for the Public as well as fellow attorneys and do what is the best interests of justice. What has happened over the past 5 years to OBC is a travesty. Stand up and do what is right rather than merely what Hardesty tells you to do. The Nuremberg Defense does not work any better at the OBC.
What is the salary?
What are the benefits?
I doubt 9:40 even knows or cares about the salary benefits, or would under any circumstances accept the job at this point in his/her career.
I took it to mean that 9:40 was simply making a point as to how recent bar counsels act or at least are perceived to act, and who they are really beholden to, and whether they are actually interested in rectifying problems as opposed to always taking a punitive approach.
And 10:32 indicates quite accurately how things need to really change in this regard.
10:32 Thank you, of all the time I have followed this blog, that is the most insightful comment made, the assistant Bar Counsels should do what is ethical and right even if told otherwise, I love the Nuremberg comment
It is kind of interesting to watch the anonymous posts blaming the OBC for every offense known to man. OBC files the complaint and prosecutes it in front of either the southern or northern discipline panel. The panel(s) as I understand it are comprised of lawyers (and possibly members of the public).
OBC can over-charge to their heart's content and request disbarment in every case, it is the panel the ultimately determines whether the charges against accused attorney have been proven to the requisite standard and to recommend the punishment if proven (not OBC).
Just like the criminal law arena, the OBC is just like the DA or AG.. a prosecuting agency. It is an adversarial system from which the truth should arise.
And just like the criminal system, it can be abused by over zealous "prosecutors" who charge everything under the sun so a rational person will take a plea rather than chance 2 lawyers and a layperson to decide their professional life. It has every bad attribute of the criminal system with very few safeguards that the criminal system has. I think this is what most are referring to, that during the process the Bar focus on truth rather than "conviction" percentages. I think the Bar should be more truth finding and not so, "let the adversarial system find truth." They are not the DA, many think they should protect lawyers from some of the public. In all sincerity, how many death threats or gang members have come to your home? There are some areas, the mentally ill, some criminal, some family law, where we need more protection from almost insane grievances. Otherwise, services to that demographic dry up. I can tell you that based on stories from my friends, I do not see the Bar as "my" organization or an entity that "protects" me. They exist to protect large firms, the status quo, and make the public feel they are doing something. Just look at the mandatory insurance proposal. It will destroy lives of real people and real children by driving out the low income lawyers who provide those services.
@9:06:
As a matter of fact, I have been the recipient of death threats and other hostile and other hostile actions which had been validated by law enforcement as a result of my professional life. A very unpleasant occupational hazard which forces you to make changes in your personal life and never fully feel completely safe afterwards, but it unfortunately comes with the territory of the type of work we chose to engage in.
I'm not suggesting that the OBC and discipline system is by any means perfect, but overall I do not view them as any worse than any agency charged with the responsibility of the prosecution of violations of laws/rules. The truth of a matter is determined by an adversarial process that tests the allegations by subjecting them to competing evidence. What precisely would be the point of the discipline panel's role if the "truth" was conclusively determined by the bar prior to the filing of a discipline case? Would they simply be determining the penalty for the violation?
Perhaps your problem is actually that you do not trust the discipline panel to accurately assess the evidence to arrive at the truth of the matter. If that is the actual problem, the initial questions needing to be answered is whether the failures are the result of operational rule problems or personnel problems.
If it is a problem with the rules, fix the rules. If it is a personnel problem, need to determine if it is a systemic problem or instead a problem with a limited number of hearing officers. If a limited problem, focus on fixing that problem. If instead it is a systemic problem, perhaps we should be discussing a revolutionary change such as adopted by some of our sister state. In those states, instead of ad hoc discipline panels (like Nevada uses) they have the cases heard by a Bar Court staffed by full-time administrative law judges. The judges in that model have no interest in the outcome of the cases, serving as an independent judiciary.
Finally, your rant regarding the malpractice insurance proposal is yet another reason why it is insane for any self-employed attorney to practice without adequate insurance. Those same " mentally ill, some criminal, some family law, where we need more protection from almost insane grievances" also result in malpractice claims.
Those claims, even when entirely frivolous must still be defended against. Most malpractice policies have what is called first dollar defense provisions. That means that the carrier has the duty to defend the case so long as the allegations allege a claim which might be covered by their duty to indemnify. The duty to defend is much broader to indemnify. The benefit of first dollar defense coverage is the attorney does not have to pay an deductible amount towards the defense costs. They would only have to pay any deductible amount if they were ultimately found liable or a settlement was paid.
Granted insurance is an added cost of business, but so is every other cost of owning a practice. Do you forego having legal research tools, using a runner service, internet access, a cell phone, etc. simply because it increases the cost of doing business?
The maintaining of insurance protects the attorney at least as much as the public. Even if you have done nothing wrong, you can incur tens of thousands of dollars (or more) defending against a frivolous claim of malpractice. Is it really worth putting for financial health, your retirement at risk (as well as that of your family) because you don't want to pay for insurance? Remember, your homeowners insurance raises the cost of home ownership yet you probably aren't complaining too loudly that you are required to carry they insurance policy.
12:03, 9:06 here, first, I have no idea what I'm doing up at 2:49 in the morning checking the blog haha, but I appreciate your detailed reply, I think that despite my quick post (I was running to Court) we agree in more places than not. However, I do see one area where we may disagree. You say the Bar is "charged with the responsibility of the prosecution of violations of laws/rules." I understand that. But I think that should be a very small part of the job. I think they should pay equal attention to the protecting us part. And maybe part of my perspective is a personal bias because of my experience. I can't be too detailed because I want to remain anonymous but someone actually came to my home and threatened me. He was a serious person and had been in the newspaper for prior acts of violence so I took it very seriously. In fact, I'm not afraid to say it was extremely frightening. (Also, I am sorry to hear that you too have experienced threats, etc.) So anyway, he files a complaint about the smallest detail you can imagine. You would not believe me if I told you. And even after almost 20 years of practice I got an informal reprimand or whatever they call it for a small procedural issue (no Trust, no money, nothing serious at all). Now in my mind, I had been subjected to threats at my house, spent many thousands on a lawyer for the Bar situation, and nothing was done about his actions or even taken into account. I realize I am only a blog post in the night and you may choose to disbelieve me, but I really felt the person handling that at the Bar could have at least pretended to understand how difficult it is to communicate with one addicted to meth (allegedly), extremely violent, and subject to horrific mood swings. Like I said, I don't want to say any more and be identified but I wish I could tell you what else he did. But I will just conclude that I appreciate your thoughtful comments and I wish more bloggers would take the time to write as you do. All the insults go no where with people and real discourse is much more beneficial. Anyway, have a good night.
2:55 edit, running to court on different post, just hurrying on that one haha
2:55 am Your case is not alone and demonstrates what 8:32 seems to not understand. There are due process safeguards in the CJ system; there are very few due process safeguards in the Attorney Discipline system. For example, there was an attorney who was given a 4 year suspension this year; however he was given it 5 years after the Supreme Court temporarily suspended him. He has no recourse and still faces an additional year to get reinstated.
The OBC is not being blamed for every offense known to man; they are being blamed for the arbitrary and capricious nature in which they have been carrying out their duties, methods and mechanisms which have NOTHING to do with the stated purpose of the office. The purpose of attorney discipline is not additional punishment of the attorney, but rather to protect the public from persons unfit to serve as attorneys and to maintain public confidence in the bar as a whole. State Bar v. Claiborne, 104 Nev. 115, 116, 756 P.2d 464, 464 (1988).
The idea that there are panels which can protect attorneys is foolhardy because (as Justice Hardesty noted in the mandatory malp hearing) the decision to file a disciplinary complaint has repercussions for an attorney. The decision to seek disbarment when the protection of the public clearly does not warrant that has repercussions for the attorney. BTW, it also has repercussions for the attorney's clients while the attorney is fighting the case. It also has repercussions for the attorney's staff while the attorney is fighting the case. It has repercussions far beyond the OBC.
When Rob Bare was there, he got it. When David Clark was there, he got it (although admittedly he was a little slow moving cases). When Stan came in with NO attorney discipline experience and was told to run the OBC like Operation Strikeforce, the Star Chamber began. Attorneys were promised 2 year suspensions were going to Hearing and suddenly being hit with 5 year suspensions by OBC. I handle discipline cases and actually had an attorney where the Member of the OBC said that he wanted us to ask for 1 year and he would ask for 3 years but would wink at the Panel so they knew that he was just doing his job but did not really think that was a just suspension. Sorry, that is garbage.
The OBC should not be like the DA; the OBC should be the protector of the Bar and all of its members, including those members who pay their dues and serve the public and have a right to be treated fairly.
I feel bad for the kids who need legal representation, but I just cannot stand all the sanctimonious guilt trips about pro bono work. Does that make me a bad person?
Without sounding sanctimonious, some of my most rewarding cases have involved representing children, pro bono.
There are other types of pro bono too.
Hear that another 2 ABCs have left OBC, Jason D and someone else. Who's left?
Because leaderships there rots the employees' souls from the inside requiring them to do heinous things to solos, small firm practitioners, and the providers of pro bono services for children; all of whom have little funding to fight the Bar. Go back through the Nevada lawyer Magazines and see the demographics of those disciplined. There is turnaround there because no one can stomach doing the bidding of those who would pervert and twist "due process" the way the Bar rules do. I wish my court schedule gave me time to elaborate today, but the proof is in the pudding; keep watching the turnover down there.
What is going on down there? Dworin is off the bar directory. Whatever happened to David Mincavage, the one implicated in Asa Ginapp's case? Have we hired a FT Bar Counsel?
Stan Hunterton left the State Bar but never updated his address listing with the State Bar.
He does not want to be found.
Hardesty knows where he is.
Just make it in care of the 9th Level of Hell
Newbie Question: If Discovery Cutoff is 9/15/18 how do I determine the last day to send RPDs? I'm guessing it would be 8/14 and then start counting 8/15 is day one, etc. Do I include the last date of 9/15? Confused, thanks!
Newbie response: when in doubt, check the rules. NRCP 6. The date of service isn't counted; the last date is counted, but keep in mind whether you need to add days under 6(e). Also – it's a rookie mistake to wait on written discovery until near the close of discovery, since you'll invariably get responses that are incomplete, and suddenly you're out of time to hold 2.34 conferences, move to compel, etc.
11:33 here, thank you so much 11:52! I wish they would have went over this in law school, thanks again!
" I wish they would have went over this in law school, thanks again!"
Is this serious? You didn't have Civ Pro as a 1L? And they didn't go over Rule 6? Really? Did you attend law school at the University of Samoa with Jimmy McGill?
Lighten up Francis. It is a reasonable question because if you serve discovery on 8/14/18, the recipient will not get the discovery requests arguably until 3 calendar days later pursuant to Rule 6(e). Each of the Discovery Rules contemplates responses/answers "within 30 days after service of the request", which could arguably be after the Discovery Cutoff. It is a reasonable question and actually a productive use of the Blog.
Not OP, but my law school didn't touch on things like timing or discovery in civ pro. It was basically jurisdiction and Erie with a little FRCP 23 stuff thrown in.
Also, I expect you would be more likely to get this kind of education at the University of Samoa, not less likely. Good law schools tend to be hyper theoretical and completely ignore practical things like calculating deadlines. My civ pro class didn't even touch discovery. Instead, my professor said something like "those of you who go on to litigate will learn everything you need to know about discovery in practice."
12:07 is bad and should feel bad. Nobody learns real discovery in law school civ pro. It's International Shoe, FRCP 12(b)(6) and 56, the various ways to get federal jurisdiction, and Erie all day long.
My professors never discussed anything as mundane as discovery deadlines or adding 3 days for mailing. All they ever said was, "Check your local rules." Why must the contributors to this blog be so demeaning to others?
So, MGM just filed its dec action claiming they should not be liable for Route 91 shooting…
And now they decided to host a gun show.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/shot-show-in-las-vegas-expanding-to-mgm-grand-caesars-forum/
Seems like bad PR and worse timing.
Who the fuck is in charge over there, Jack the Ripper?
11:33 here, my Civ Pro teacher focused more on the underlying due process / constitutional issues of procedure and not so much the counting dates specifics, but I would add that (law is my second career), I'm a battle-hardened old guy from the mortgage industry and not easily offended but comments like 12:07 may drive young people away from serious questions, I realize that will take away from 12:07's time to gossip and such but, at least in my opinion, the blog should be inclusive, and once again, I do thank NewlyMinted who took the time out of his/her day to help me out
To the people with the smart ass responses to @11:33 – relax. This blog is always down to gossip but why not allow it to be a place where people can feel free to ask questions they may not otherwise want to ask their co-workers.
Yeah for such a snarky response it was silly too. Teaching 1L's how to calculate deadlines reminds me of schools who focus curriculum on MBE prep. I don't think it's a thing many reputable schools would do.
Why is 11:33 afraid to ask a co-worker? That is one of the advantages of working in a firm. When I last worked in a firm, my door was always open to answer questions like this. And if the op is on his/her own and doesn't know how to count legal days per nrcp 6, then I highly suggest that person close up shop and get a job with a real firm, before malpractice is committed.
By the way, the op should also know that all discovery requests in ejdc need to be served via Odyssey.
You can still ROC discovery and/or pleadings.