Disciplinary panel, chaired by Andy Chiu, issues public reprimand to Justin Jones, declining to disbar him as sought by bar counsel. [RJ; KTNV; 8NewsNow; Fox5Vegas]
Even after court rulings call their firings illegal, federal workers in Nevada face uncertain future. [Nevada Current]
Which city council members accepted free tickets to sporting events? [RJ]
DOGE cuts affecting Nevada water rights discussions. [KTNV]
Yesterday marked five years since the Strip shutdown due to the pandemic: impacts left behind in Las Vegas. [KTNV]
Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but isn’t the panels finding just a recommendation to the Supreme Court? These articles are written as if this matter were closed, when in fact, the Supreme Court has to decide whether or not to accept the recommendation. How do local journalists miss obvious things like this? The public, reading these articles, could be forgiven for thinking that the case is over. It is not.
Yes, anything from a contested public reprimand to disbarment is automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. Factual findings are given deference but the sanction recommendation is reviewed de novo.
No fan, but perhaps somewhat unfair. Consider that any disciplinary group will be disliked by the membership. The person heading things up will automatically be the target for criticism.
I’m female and it would not have occurred to me to be offended by this. I mean, now that I think about it, it makes some sense, but doesn’t seem like something to get angry over. Now, call me a “gal” and I’ll cut you, but “female” doesn’t seem super-offensive
Anytime a person chooses to remove a woman’s personhood and define her by her gender only (e.g., “female” “gal”), that person is behaving in a sexist manner. That person is trying to make the woman less-than a person. That is why “females” “gal” etc. is considered sexist by anyone who has self respect.
Attorney dominated panels tend to go easy on lawyers charged with technical violations (by that I mean not stealing or otherwise hurting clients). That being said this is a complicated matter with Justin Jones. The Ethics Commission is where it belongs did not act. Clearly what was done was wrong. Don’t know how the Nevada Supreme Court is going to view it. They could go for more punishment such as a suspension. With respect to Hooge, he brought the case. Who would want his job. Is replacing him the answer?
The one that always gets me is when they describe an order on an MTD as finding that there was “insufficient evidence.” When journalists write about something you’re a specialist in, you realize how much they’re probably getting wrong about all the things you’re not a specialist in. Of course, they’re still probably the best we’ve got.
“When journalists write about something you’re a specialist in, you realize how much they’re probably getting wrong about all the things you’re not a specialist in.”
Yes. This failure is usually not because of bias. It’s the constraint of time to really learn a topic, and then the constraint of space (column inches) to explain it.
And the Supreme Court can reject the findings and disbar. This happened to Brian Jones with the Kummer Kaempfer HOA/Leon Benzer stuff. The bar was going to suspend – the Supreme Court rejected and disbarred him.
Crawford was part of the “old guard.” He was social friends in the 80’s and 90’s with the people that made the decisions regarding his discipline and consequences.
Less relevant is this “good old boys network” theory. More relevant is the fact that we have a new NSC running the show. With “Hang em High Jim” long gone, the moderates have taken over. We will see more changes than this.
Especially with various rule changes being contemplated.
This is the correct answer. One need look no further than Jim Hardesty off of the Court and Patty Lee in. No one did no more damage to attorney regulation in this state than Hanging Hardesty.
The Nevada Supreme Court now is dominated by liberal Democratic women who will protect Justin Jones who is the poster child of the liberal Democratic County Commission. Something to consider so maybe they will affirm. The politics favors Jones plus he is well rep’d by Rob Bare.
Brian Jones came during the Hardesty/Hunterton junta when Big Jim was doubling the suspensions that the Panels were sending up. Brian had no chance on that one. There are absolute travesties during that time.
A movement should be started to replace current bar counsel. Someone that power-hungry doesn’t belong in his position. He’s temperamentally ill-suited to any position in which he’s called upon to exercise measured discretion. He seems out of control, drunk with power, and on a perpetual full-throttle rant.
“Justin Jones doesn’t deserve to stand among us.” I hate this quote. Jones messed up and will pay for it, but to call for a professional death penalty in such a hyperbolic, sanctimonious way? Especially where the bribery stuff was just nonsensical.
I don’t know if he is drunk with power or if he just lacks the knowledge and discretion to know the difference. He reminds me a lot of Steve Myrhe in the US Attorney’s Office. Someone who so does not have any real conscience or conscious regard for the great power to destroy that he wields. Neither of them should be in their jobs.
Herndon did his share of grandstanding before recusing himself. Addiction affects all walks of life. Who cares if he was a prosecutor – he should have been treated the same as any first-time offender.
David bought $40 worth of cocaine. He had been the prosecutor in charge of famous drug defendants. Ellsworth wanted to make an example of him and even after the DA and P&P recommended probation, Ellsworth gave him 9 months in jail. He fled to Mexico, came back, went to jail for 5 months and then killed himself.
He is paid through our bar dues. How much time did this waste? And how exactly did this protect the public? Seems that the old Hooge wanted his name in the paper to build some brand recognition for his next attempt at public office. To the extent that was his motive, he is the one that needs to step aside.
Oh Hooge, name wrapped in culinary jest,
A sandwich of bravado, you think you’re the best.
With layers of confidence, stacked high on your plate,
You strut through life’s deli, convinced you’re first-rate.
Your wit like mustard, spreads thin on the bread,
With every quip uttered, everyone’s misled.
You boast of your prowess in games of the mind,
Yet we see through the lettuce, the layers you hide.
Behold, our dear Hooge, the king of the brawl,
In battles of banter, you rise and you fall.
Your humor, a pickle, it bites with a twist,
While we marvel at how you persist and exist.
Oh, glory to you, with your ego so grand,
A hero of lunch breaks, with a fork in your hand.
You feast on attention, like chips in a bowl,
Oh, Hooge, our friend, you’re a sight for the soul.
So raise up your sandwich, let’s toast to your reign,
In the court of the jesters, you’re king of the lame.
For life is but humor, we all wear a guise,
And perhaps, dear Hoogie, it’s you who’s the prize.
Speaking out for money – very noble just like Dom Gentile and all expert witnesses. Of course the quote in the article merely states Edwards was “concerned.” It was not criminal conduct and his testimony relates to government ethics.
This is not my area of expertise so maybe someone else can help me out here: how can it be true that the Sands fiasco not relevant, but Justin Jones’ community service and pro bono legal work is?? The 8NewsNow article says there was expert testimony that Jones is a “decent person.” The panel heard this without considering the spoliation from the Sands case ? Seems weird
Because the judge that issued sanctions in the “Sands fiasco” testified that she did not attribute any fault to Jones. That was just good ol Jane Ann Morrison reporting. She was worse than the reporters who misunderstand the denial of a motion to dismiss – she misunderstood legal proceedings but just let her stream of consciousness spill her opinions and any version of the facts and motives that fit the narrative she chose onto the pages of the RJ. The RJ has always sucked but there have been a few good ones. I miss German and Sebelius.
Much of the instability in the Office of Bar Counsel can be traced back to Jane Ann Morrison’s columns. She aggressively attacked the bar for what was then a very real backlog of grievances. The problem was that she peppered these complaints with hand picked examples of what she felt were lenient penalties. This embarrassed the Nevada Supreme Court and NSB, who reacted by swinging hard in the direction of Stan Hunterton. I think much of the hate Hooge gets here is unwarranted, he is not nearly as draconian as Hunterton. In the last decade and a half, the RPC’s have gone from rarely applied, to overly aggressively applied to inconsistently applied.
I’m.embarassed for you when you post things like this. How are you not humiliated by these type of comments? Do you even realize how pathetic this looks to the people who are forced to read this dribble? It’s sad. Do better.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2025 4:05 pm
Nevada/Las Vegas legal practice is a cesspool. Family Law Cabal. PI Cabal. Hooge. Justin Jones. Hardesty. That dude that had issues on the boat. Biased judges. A disgraceful discovery and discovery dispute resolution system. A situation which resulted in two people being murdered. Good riddance.
We have The Sphere tho – have you seen Dead & Co.? Easily outweighs all those things in your post.
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2025 4:23 pm
Wow. I like Justin as an attorney and he seems like a good guy. Don’t know Hooge other than people trashing him on this blog (thank goodness apparently). Is he really that bad? Did he have an axe to grind with Justin or did he just dig in too far believing his own BS (something I may have been guilty of once or twice in my decades of practice). Seems very aggressive and personal.
No. All of the comments today are from Justin Jones logging in to boost his ego. He is going to be really sad if anyone does a VPN search and fi d out what he really spends his time doing when he’s supposed to be working for the public.
Some comments seem.yo be from Rob Bare too. But today’s comment section is, in no way, a representation of what lawyers in the field actually thi k about Jones, Bare, and Hooge.
Checked the blog at end of day. Normal number of down votes and upvotes. Get up and for some reason checked the blog and holy smokes Batman the downvote army is out in force. Pretty impressive response actually, unless some simply has access to a bunch of devices. Oh well can’t wait to see what happens today.
No argument there. However, I HAVE to believe that most humans have way more interesting things to do than troll with dozens and dozens of dislikes ton this blog at 10pm. This was a lone wolf. . . . a lone wolf with either no life or a personal interest in the subject matter.
Or, possibly, the law community is sick of the embarrassing display of childish commentary on here day after day and we no longer want to be associated with petty people.
People who realize that the vast majority of lawyers do law-related things between 8 am and 6 pm. All of a sudden “30+ people” logged on and unanimously voted between 9 pm and 10 pm at night? Sounds plausible.
To the haters of this comment: Anyone that reads the blog on a regular basis, heck even a semi-regular basis knows what’s a normal number of up and down votes. Furthermore, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to ascertain that there was a correlation between down votes and the substance of the comment. I sincerely hope you exercise better analytical skills on behalf of your clients.
Your argument is that because attorneys decided to do their jobs during business hours instead of correct your bad behavior, then the corrections related to your bad behavior must be fake?
Your premise is flawed. Therefore, your argument is flawed. We don’t care about you enough to stop making money.
We do care about how your bad behavior makes us look. Plus, you’re annoying. All the childish behavior is annoying. I’ve seen 2 year olds with better manners than you. Grow up. Realize the public has spoken, and do better.
Its hard to tell whether your comments are serious, whether you are an adult and whether you are an attorney. But one thing is certain- you’re a sanctimonious douche.
Occupy law blog! We ate tired of washed up bitter and nasty attorneys (for now) spewing hatred and nastiness! TAKE BACK OUR BLOG!!@
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2025 10:02 pm
OCCUPY LAW BLOG!! Down withthe hate and propaganda!! Watch the people unite!
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2025 10:09 pm
Take back our law blog from the nasty, irrelevant, and mean people who post day after day! Show them that we are not an echo chamber for them to abuse! Take back the law blog! Lawyers, UNITE AGAINST HATE!
Guest
Anonymous
March 18, 2025 10:46 pm
The law blog is not replacement for therapy. The name calling and outright nastiness us disgusting and makes the entire profession look bad. Stop. We don’t like it. You are making the community worse. Stop.
Guest
Anonymous
March 19, 2025 9:34 am
I just think that Hooge, Jones, Bare, Edwards, Gentile and Chiu are people being people. Sometimes we try hard and fail or make mistakes and sometimes we can learn from them. Like Anna, we should each try to do the next right thing. (Maybe everyone is sad they’re not on spring break)
I have some visibility on the back end of this blog to see what’s actually going on with the traffic. That being said, I’m amused by the extremely small group of kooky individual(s) with a VPN who have decided to do I don’t even know what with all these bizarre comments and up/down votes on this post, so I’m not going to THWACK anything I’ve seen here, at least not yet.
Maybe I’m nitpicking here, but isn’t the panels finding just a recommendation to the Supreme Court? These articles are written as if this matter were closed, when in fact, the Supreme Court has to decide whether or not to accept the recommendation. How do local journalists miss obvious things like this? The public, reading these articles, could be forgiven for thinking that the case is over. It is not.
Yes, anything from a contested public reprimand to disbarment is automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court. Factual findings are given deference but the sanction recommendation is reviewed de novo.
Dan Hooge does not deserve to stand amongst us.
Best comment in ever.
Who is charged with reviewing Hooge.
DOHGE
Take your toddler behavior to the playground–adults are trying to discuss the news here.
No fan, but perhaps somewhat unfair. Consider that any disciplinary group will be disliked by the membership. The person heading things up will automatically be the target for criticism.
Nah, compare how people talk about him vs. Rob Bare
You’re golden standard is the man who refers to women as “females”? Don’t act like you don’t know his reputation when he was on the bench.
Women are females. What’s the problem?
Female what? Giraffes? That’s my problem: It’s sexist and inefficient —just like the incels who use the term.
This is not a real person, right?
I’m female and it would not have occurred to me to be offended by this. I mean, now that I think about it, it makes some sense, but doesn’t seem like something to get angry over. Now, call me a “gal” and I’ll cut you, but “female” doesn’t seem super-offensive
Anytime a person chooses to remove a woman’s personhood and define her by her gender only (e.g., “female” “gal”), that person is behaving in a sexist manner. That person is trying to make the woman less-than a person. That is why “females” “gal” etc. is considered sexist by anyone who has self respect.
You’ve clearly never heard people talk about bare…
Attorney dominated panels tend to go easy on lawyers charged with technical violations (by that I mean not stealing or otherwise hurting clients). That being said this is a complicated matter with Justin Jones. The Ethics Commission is where it belongs did not act. Clearly what was done was wrong. Don’t know how the Nevada Supreme Court is going to view it. They could go for more punishment such as a suspension. With respect to Hooge, he brought the case. Who would want his job. Is replacing him the answer?
You’re clearly not an attorney if you don’t understand that wr are always bound by the rules of professional conduct.
Remind me, was Jones’s vote decisive on any of the matters involving the development? If it wasn’t, then this whole case was a pipe dream.
No. It was unanimous
Which element of bribery requires someone else to act?
The one that always gets me is when they describe an order on an MTD as finding that there was “insufficient evidence.” When journalists write about something you’re a specialist in, you realize how much they’re probably getting wrong about all the things you’re not a specialist in. Of course, they’re still probably the best we’ve got.
“When journalists write about something you’re a specialist in, you realize how much they’re probably getting wrong about all the things you’re not a specialist in.”
Yes. This failure is usually not because of bias. It’s the constraint of time to really learn a topic, and then the constraint of space (column inches) to explain it.
It can also reflective of a refusal by quality journalists to work for a hack paper like the Review Journal.
It’s not just the RJ. Watch any of the three major network news shows.
The press writes in bumper stickers. No nuances, little explanation.
Because that’s just about all the majority of the reading public can understand. Journalists are keeping it simple for the stupid.
And the Supreme Court can reject the findings and disbar. This happened to Brian Jones with the Kummer Kaempfer HOA/Leon Benzer stuff. The bar was going to suspend – the Supreme Court rejected and disbarred him.
Opposite happened with Doug Crawford the fist time. State Bar wanted to disbar him, Supreme Court suspended him and ultimately allowed him back in.
Crawford was part of the “old guard.” He was social friends in the 80’s and 90’s with the people that made the decisions regarding his discipline and consequences.
Not sure I agree with this.
Less relevant is this “good old boys network” theory. More relevant is the fact that we have a new NSC running the show. With “Hang em High Jim” long gone, the moderates have taken over. We will see more changes than this.
Especially with various rule changes being contemplated.
Get ready.
This is the correct answer. One need look no further than Jim Hardesty off of the Court and Patty Lee in. No one did no more damage to attorney regulation in this state than Hanging Hardesty.
The Nevada Supreme Court now is dominated by liberal Democratic women who will protect Justin Jones who is the poster child of the liberal Democratic County Commission. Something to consider so maybe they will affirm. The politics favors Jones plus he is well rep’d by Rob Bare.
We reject Justin as our poster child. Maybe the independents want him?
Independent here – nope. We don’t want him either. Maybe the republicans?
No thx. – republican
Oh stop trolling
Enough of the childish name calling. Grow up.
Brian Jones came during the Hardesty/Hunterton junta when Big Jim was doubling the suspensions that the Panels were sending up. Brian had no chance on that one. There are absolute travesties during that time.
This was perhaps the most egregious decision – particularly because partner Bob skated by unscathed.
Do you have any gossip from this century?
A movement should be started to replace current bar counsel. Someone that power-hungry doesn’t belong in his position. He’s temperamentally ill-suited to any position in which he’s called upon to exercise measured discretion. He seems out of control, drunk with power, and on a perpetual full-throttle rant.
“Justin Jones doesn’t deserve to stand among us.” I hate this quote. Jones messed up and will pay for it, but to call for a professional death penalty in such a hyperbolic, sanctimonious way? Especially where the bribery stuff was just nonsensical.
Rob Bare was exceptional as bar counsel.
Unfortunately, there is only one Rob Bare and he has already done it.
I don’t think women can survive two rob cares.
Is anyone still alive from when he was bar cou sel.who can confirm this?
I don’t know if he is drunk with power or if he just lacks the knowledge and discretion to know the difference. He reminds me a lot of Steve Myrhe in the US Attorney’s Office. Someone who so does not have any real conscience or conscious regard for the great power to destroy that he wields. Neither of them should be in their jobs.
Or Carolyn Ellsworth. I still have not forgiven her for David Schubert.
12:24-What happened with David Schubert and Carolyn Ellsworth?
https://lasvegassun.com/news/2013/jul/17/troubled-former-drug-prosecutor-found-dead-his-hom/
And https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/before-death-troubles-piled-up-for-ex-prosecutor-schubert/
Herndon did his share of grandstanding before recusing himself. Addiction affects all walks of life. Who cares if he was a prosecutor – he should have been treated the same as any first-time offender.
David bought $40 worth of cocaine. He had been the prosecutor in charge of famous drug defendants. Ellsworth wanted to make an example of him and even after the DA and P&P recommended probation, Ellsworth gave him 9 months in jail. He fled to Mexico, came back, went to jail for 5 months and then killed himself.
9 months for $40 worth of coke? Sleep well Carolyn.
He is paid through our bar dues. How much time did this waste? And how exactly did this protect the public? Seems that the old Hooge wanted his name in the paper to build some brand recognition for his next attempt at public office. To the extent that was his motive, he is the one that needs to step aside.
He is a Nico Della Guardia
An AI Ode to Hooge
In a lab with a centrifuge,
I saw a playful little noodge,
While spooge flew in the air,
With subterfuge everywhere,
As I raced down a snowy luge.
A trio of clowns, each a stooge,
One acted stingy like Scrooge,
But the fun felt so huge,
In this whimsical deluge,
Life’s antics are hard to refuse!
But see DeepAI’s attempt:
Ode to Hooge, Master of Pretend
Oh Hooge, name wrapped in culinary jest,
A sandwich of bravado, you think you’re the best.
With layers of confidence, stacked high on your plate,
You strut through life’s deli, convinced you’re first-rate.
Your wit like mustard, spreads thin on the bread,
With every quip uttered, everyone’s misled.
You boast of your prowess in games of the mind,
Yet we see through the lettuce, the layers you hide.
Behold, our dear Hooge, the king of the brawl,
In battles of banter, you rise and you fall.
Your humor, a pickle, it bites with a twist,
While we marvel at how you persist and exist.
Oh, glory to you, with your ego so grand,
A hero of lunch breaks, with a fork in your hand.
You feast on attention, like chips in a bowl,
Oh, Hooge, our friend, you’re a sight for the soul.
So raise up your sandwich, let’s toast to your reign,
In the court of the jesters, you’re king of the lame.
For life is but humor, we all wear a guise,
And perhaps, dear Hoogie, it’s you who’s the prize.
Is this in the key of a minorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr?
Who spends this much time writing poetry for other men?
“Who spends this much time writing poetry for other men?”
Touche lol
Can we please retire the phrase living rent free in someone’s head?
I feel like that says more about the poster than Hooge….
Good on Ben Edwards, one of the rare law profs who speak out about doing the right thing.
Speaking out for money – very noble just like Dom Gentile and all expert witnesses. Of course the quote in the article merely states Edwards was “concerned.” It was not criminal conduct and his testimony relates to government ethics.
Oh. Nevermind then I guess.
This is not my area of expertise so maybe someone else can help me out here: how can it be true that the Sands fiasco not relevant, but Justin Jones’ community service and pro bono legal work is?? The 8NewsNow article says there was expert testimony that Jones is a “decent person.” The panel heard this without considering the spoliation from the Sands case ? Seems weird
https://www.ktnv.com/news/embattled-commissioner-wins-first-round-at-state-bar-hearing
Because the judge that issued sanctions in the “Sands fiasco” testified that she did not attribute any fault to Jones. That was just good ol Jane Ann Morrison reporting. She was worse than the reporters who misunderstand the denial of a motion to dismiss – she misunderstood legal proceedings but just let her stream of consciousness spill her opinions and any version of the facts and motives that fit the narrative she chose onto the pages of the RJ. The RJ has always sucked but there have been a few good ones. I miss German and Sebelius.
Much of the instability in the Office of Bar Counsel can be traced back to Jane Ann Morrison’s columns. She aggressively attacked the bar for what was then a very real backlog of grievances. The problem was that she peppered these complaints with hand picked examples of what she felt were lenient penalties. This embarrassed the Nevada Supreme Court and NSB, who reacted by swinging hard in the direction of Stan Hunterton. I think much of the hate Hooge gets here is unwarranted, he is not nearly as draconian as Hunterton. In the last decade and a half, the RPC’s have gone from rarely applied, to overly aggressively applied to inconsistently applied.
I’m.embarassed for you when you post things like this. How are you not humiliated by these type of comments? Do you even realize how pathetic this looks to the people who are forced to read this dribble? It’s sad. Do better.
Nevada/Las Vegas legal practice is a cesspool. Family Law Cabal. PI Cabal. Hooge. Justin Jones. Hardesty. That dude that had issues on the boat. Biased judges. A disgraceful discovery and discovery dispute resolution system. A situation which resulted in two people being murdered. Good riddance.
We have The Sphere tho – have you seen Dead & Co.? Easily outweighs all those things in your post.
Wow. I like Justin as an attorney and he seems like a good guy. Don’t know Hooge other than people trashing him on this blog (thank goodness apparently). Is he really that bad? Did he have an axe to grind with Justin or did he just dig in too far believing his own BS (something I may have been guilty of once or twice in my decades of practice). Seems very aggressive and personal.
No. All of the comments today are from Justin Jones logging in to boost his ego. He is going to be really sad if anyone does a VPN search and fi d out what he really spends his time doing when he’s supposed to be working for the public.
Some comments seem.yo be from Rob Bare too. But today’s comment section is, in no way, a representation of what lawyers in the field actually thi k about Jones, Bare, and Hooge.
Lesson here: Don’t feed the trolls.
I would disagree that Jones “seems like a good guy”
I second this person’s disagreement. Jones is most definitely not on the “good guy” side of life.
It doesn’t seem at all personal. What is that supposed to even mean?
The sperm-poem to bar counsel isn’t personal?
8:35- I was referring to the comment about the hate for Justin Jones seeming personal, not the Hooge poem.
8:35 – agreed
Law blog be popppinnnnn
Checked the blog at end of day. Normal number of down votes and upvotes. Get up and for some reason checked the blog and holy smokes Batman the downvote army is out in force. Pretty impressive response actually, unless some simply has access to a bunch of devices. Oh well can’t wait to see what happens today.
Or uses a rolling vpn, switches servers with a click and does multiple downvotes. Not that hard and all too common.
No way there are that many people on a 10 pm.
10 pm is early if you’re under 50, my friend.
No argument there. However, I HAVE to believe that most humans have way more interesting things to do than troll with dozens and dozens of dislikes ton this blog at 10pm. This was a lone wolf. . . . a lone wolf with either no life or a personal interest in the subject matter.
Go with whatever delusion helps you sleep at night, I guess.
Or, possibly, the law community is sick of the embarrassing display of childish commentary on here day after day and we no longer want to be associated with petty people.
8 am to 10 pm: normal number of up votes and down votes.
10 pm to 8 am: 30 down votes and up votes.
Yeah nothing fishy here.
Who counts down votes by the hour?
Who has enough time to do that?
Lonely people.
No one. Someone with a bruised ego is grasping at straws.
People who realize that the vast majority of lawyers do law-related things between 8 am and 6 pm. All of a sudden “30+ people” logged on and unanimously voted between 9 pm and 10 pm at night? Sounds plausible.
….or, liars. Noone is tracking votes by hour. Stop lying
Which, is kind of funny on a post about Jones lacking truthfulness. If you think about it.
Occams Razor.
Jim’s Razor.
I mean, this is the fakest thing I’ve read on the internet today.
To the haters of this comment: Anyone that reads the blog on a regular basis, heck even a semi-regular basis knows what’s a normal number of up and down votes. Furthermore, it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to ascertain that there was a correlation between down votes and the substance of the comment. I sincerely hope you exercise better analytical skills on behalf of your clients.
I ain’t gonna read all that.
Three sentences a little too much for ya?
10:52: 3 sentences of hate, lies, or complete bs is too muh for anyone. Nobody has time for it, not just me.
It’s “anyone WHO,” not that. And what is a rocket surgeon?
Your argument is that because attorneys decided to do their jobs during business hours instead of correct your bad behavior, then the corrections related to your bad behavior must be fake?
Your premise is flawed. Therefore, your argument is flawed. We don’t care about you enough to stop making money.
We do care about how your bad behavior makes us look. Plus, you’re annoying. All the childish behavior is annoying. I’ve seen 2 year olds with better manners than you. Grow up. Realize the public has spoken, and do better.
Its hard to tell whether your comments are serious, whether you are an adult and whether you are an attorney. But one thing is certain- you’re a sanctimonious douche.
Re: Influx of downvotes on some comments tonight…
https://youtu.be/WCyX4f8qzlo?feature=shared&t=66
Occupy law blog! We ate tired of washed up bitter and nasty attorneys (for now) spewing hatred and nastiness! TAKE BACK OUR BLOG!!@
OCCUPY LAW BLOG!! Down withthe hate and propaganda!! Watch the people unite!
Take back our law blog from the nasty, irrelevant, and mean people who post day after day! Show them that we are not an echo chamber for them to abuse! Take back the law blog! Lawyers, UNITE AGAINST HATE!
The law blog is not replacement for therapy. The name calling and outright nastiness us disgusting and makes the entire profession look bad. Stop. We don’t like it. You are making the community worse. Stop.
I just think that Hooge, Jones, Bare, Edwards, Gentile and Chiu are people being people. Sometimes we try hard and fail or make mistakes and sometimes we can learn from them. Like Anna, we should each try to do the next right thing. (Maybe everyone is sad they’re not on spring break)
I have some visibility on the back end of this blog to see what’s actually going on with the traffic. That being said, I’m amused by the extremely small group of kooky individual(s) with a VPN who have decided to do I don’t even know what with all these bizarre comments and up/down votes on this post, so I’m not going to THWACK anything I’ve seen here, at least not yet.
i knew there wasn’t more than 30 people reading this blog, no way to have that many downvotes on one post, has to be one crazy person
Bingo