Here is your chance. I have heard a lot of complaining about the Nevada State Bar on this blog and their persecution of SOLOs, etc. The perfect storm has occurred in my life (retiring, have the money, have the will power) that has brought me to lead the fight. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to just receiving a Grievance or something. I have pondered this over for roughly two years. I am suing the SBN within the next 60 days. I have my own legal theories of course. And, if the NSB follows this blog, I do not want to give them up here. However, in the interest of crowd-sourcing, I ask the following. What do you think the best legal theory justifying a suit for their relentless persecution of SOLOs? What about the Equal Protection Clause as the largest client base is comprised of protected classes and the SOLO, in my case, represents that class, i.e., an attack on me is an attack on them. I understand the SBN will litigate hard, so I want it to be rock solid. Before you hammer me too hard, I have my own theories and the Also, what is most likely to survive the inevitable MTD. Also, I now live in AZ but am licensed in NV. I am a long-time civ lit lawyer – I wish I knew more Con Law as I think it might lean that way. How does the TNI article above affect this? I read Wikinomics a long time ago and crowdsourcing is a great thing – welcome any insights e.g., effect of publicity as a public record, effect on focus of Bar, who will likely defend them, etc.? Thank you.
Op back – one problem is the nevada Supreme Court effectively sets tone that’s why needs to be in federal court, basing my complaint reasoning off a successful one in another district, but realize as soon as I file I’m done up there but I was anyway, I understand the legal side I hope, what I also need help with is the practical side – wouldn’t they have to hire firm for federal court because know of no there qualified – sorry typing at lunch
Just some friendly advice but before filing anything I'd set it aside for a few months and not touch it or think about it. Then go back and re-read everything and decide if it is worth doing. If you still have the same fire in your gut, go for it.
Agree with 1:37, this is a bad idea. How are you going to "prove" they only go after solos and small firms? Waterboarding? They're going to say that they don't "go" after anybody, they respond to client complaints, and the clients of big firm's don't complain. And you're going to handle this, based on your memory of con law from law school? This is a bad idea.
In the wise words of Elsa – Let it go. You’re retired. Also – as a practitioner who focuses on con law matters – you will lose. Trust me. There is limited to no due process in admin law. another person shed some light on the equal protection issues. There is no path on your facts. Live well and do something constructive with your time if you really want to help SOLO’s – mentor, who knows. Don’t destroy your happiness with litigation against the Bar.
I want to first say that I applaud you and I am happy to talk to you and theorize with you. I can tell you with absolute truth that not only they go after solos and small firms, but I can tell you with certainty that their legal theories for the basis of punishment are illegal, immoral and literally do not follow the law after they dispense erroneous discipline to duly licensed members of this bar.
This is not a pontification of ivory tower theories; I can give names of attorneys reprimanded on the basis of flawed legal analysis by their “legal experts” I can tell you with absolute certainty that they have ignored federal law when coming to their conclusions as to whether suspend or disbar an attorney that they do not like or they want to get rid of. They have destroyed lives of people I know personally.
From a totally objective standpoint, please note that there have been federal lawsuits in 17 different states challenging the state bar’s scope and power, as well as their unilateral decisions as to where to put their monies and which political narratives to promote. There are incompetent bullies in every jurisdiction.
As I friend once told me in law school, “I might be small but when I go up against a bully and knock a tooth out, they will think twice about fighting me”. You might not win but knocking a tooth out may do the job, metaphorically speaking.
These people heading the OBC are incompetent bullies and need to be called in front of a real court (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) and be called on the carpet for their nonsense in dispensing whatever it is they call it when they want to punish specific people in Nevada. Maybe a nice fine and injunctive relief to this state bar might do the trick.
I say the 9th Circuit because I went to high school with a number of these local judges and even a few federal judges. The local judges don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to jeopardize their positions and salaries dealing with these low hires in the State Bar of Nevada.
Remember, they will not touch certain attorneys until they literally have been convicted in a criminal court and had their criminal acts blasted on the evening news. I would state that the only reason they would take action on these media events is because they know that if they don’t, the spotlight would shine on them and there would be questions why they refuse to make any kind of comment.
Nope, personally I am tired of being threatened by these bullies and I would be happy to help you shine a light on these incompetent bureaucrats and their heavy handed treatment to solos and small firms.
If you are interested in talking to me as to specific names, actions and so forth, I am happy to help you out. My email address is gerlachdrive1968@proton.me
The equal protection theory is interesting, but I am fairly certain that showing discriminatory effect (which is what you seem to be claiming) is not enough. You must prove discriminatory intent, as well. In other words, you have to show it was their intent to harm the clients in the protected classes. Very difficult.
Op back – thank you for the thoughtful responses and advice. I want to consider all and respond intelligently. But before that I would note 2 things: 1) I expect the suit to be very difficult but my primary goal is the exposure 2) re proof is solo bias, think of this ALL but a couple times in last 25 years of discipline are small firms 3) the fuel in me is that one time the bar accused me of X and I showed them a document of not X and they wouldn’t give me time of day, I waited and waited and waited until no longer under their thumb, and they will now give me time in court
@ 2:52 pm – Agreed however I believe that there is a distinct class of legal practitioners that OBC has been singling out over the past ten+ years that they may or may not be aware of. Additionally, I also believe there is a commerce clause violation that they are not thinking about. Let the chips fall where they may. Look at the lawsuit out of Arizona from the Goldwater Institute that lay out half the theory to take the OBC to task.
The OBC does not do enough. They are cleaning up after decades of lawyers completing ignoring the NRPC and the judges whose election funding is 95% from these lawyers looking the other way. Every honest, competent, hard working lawyer in this state would like to see a huge purge of the lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name. Maybe this purge is finally starting. Nevada is the laughing stock of the US with its bar members and district courts.
I don't think you would have standing to bring such a suit unless they came after you personally. You can't sue for generalized grievances outisde of a few exceptions. I don't think that just being a member of the bar would give you standing. Just a thought. May have to find someone to be a plaintiff for you who they have gone after.
Agreed at @2:58. Virtually every solo in this state needs to be prosecuted by OBC to get them back on the straight and narrow and to convince them that the NRPC are not mere suggestions but binding rules that they violate at their peril. I'm sick of all the solos not being prosecuted for their ethical violations and poor service to their clients. Despite all the tough talk on this blog, one must solos are pursued by OBC they start pissing their pants and surrender with a guilty plea on the spot. And for the few that attempt to stand their ground, OBC is rightfully pursuing harsh punishments so they experience a severe penalty for risking trial and not pleading guilty.
Don't you need to have a client who has been aggrieved? I agree with a great deal of what you are saying, but it sounds like you might have a standing problem.
So you're doing it on principle to make the world a better place for our law community. When clients say they want to do something for for the greater good and not for themselves, I run. But good luck you Mr. Quixote.
@ 3:12 PM – The problem is not going after every single solo in the State (since most of them are not doing bad things). It is the problem that the OBC knows the bad actors and they are not going after the bad actors because they do not want to alienate those powerful attorneys who are embedded in the community and will give them a fight that would deplete the war chest of the OBC to take them on. Cowards. And as far as going after EVERY SOLO in the state and making them kneel before you and kissing your ring? Do you not see the irony in your statement? I am assuming you work for the OBC making fascists statements about admitting to guilt that is not there. What a little person you must be,
What a bunch of crybabies. Do any of you actually work in the courts? Break the rules, face the consequences. Your clients have to follow the rules and the laws yet you cry when someone enforces the clearly worded rules against you when you break them? Some free legal advice, follow the rules of professional conduct and you will never even think about OBC
This is NOT a solicitation. Just putting this over here . . .
1. Hafter v. Clark, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Nev. 2014)
2. Breck v. State Bar, 3:12-cv-00649-MMD-VPC (“The State of Nevada has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, so it is immune from Breck’s damages claims. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.031(3). Eleventh Amendment immunity extends beyond the state itself. “[A]rms of the [s]tate” also enjoy the Amendment’s protection. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). We have previously recognized that both the Nevada Supreme Court and the SBN are arms of the State of Nevada, and so are immune from § 1983 damages claims. O’Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir. 1982). As a result, the Eleventh Amendment precludes Breck’s damages claims against all the Institutional Defendants. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Breck’s complaint as to these defendants.”).
Not a fan of OBC, but I can imagine it is quite a thrill to corner an arrogant solo, give them no avenue of escape, and then make them kiss the ring and plead guilty. Probably pretty entertaining to look at the image on the solo’s website and juxtapose it with the image of them kneeling before you begging for mercy.
The key word here is guilty. The cases that are published on the supreme court's site and summarized each month in the bar's magazine do not show any abuse. I have not found even one where the lawyer made some minor error. They are all egregious violations. Follow the rules or change your profession. It is time to for people that consider themselves professionals to start acting like adults.
Anyone who thinks avoiding a bar complaint is all that’s needed to stay out of OBC’s crosshairs is sadly misinformed. Since you’re ranting about reading the rules, go review them for yourself. There are many rules that are so vaguely written, you could be prosecuted by OBC for virtually anything. Not only is OBC overly prosecutorial, they are also hurting people. When you take away a person’s profession and their purpose, you do real harm. We’re bordering on a suicide every 6 months in the Vegas legal community. That’s a real problem and OBC and the Commission on Judicial Discipline are right in the middle of it. You might enjoy writing some snarky comment about just “follow the rules” on this anonymous blog, but that’s not an answer when you have OBC actively targeting people for no read other than to get a win.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Give some solid, truthful examples of "overly prosecutorial" and where they are use VAGUE rules to persecute people. I have seen none yet I see tons of examples where nothing is done every month. I have seen no one present 3-5 cases of this "out of control" OBC that people complain about. Post 3-5 solid examples for all of us to judge. Otherwise I will continue to believe the complainers are just mad because they got caught doing something they do every day. Like the speeder complaining about radar.
I will give you one example of a case of the out of control OBC– Asa Ginapp's case. Case 71015. Disbarment secured based upon perjurious testimony by the OBC Paralegal on the case. Turned into a 6 month suspension thanks to people caring enough to stand up.
Didn’t you see the comments the other day? OBC missed a deadline and still filed a brief arguing they should be allowed to blow deadlines. That forced the attorney to incur legal fees in filing a response brief. We all know if we miss a deadline, we’re toast. For some reason, OBC thinks they’re special so the respondent gets hit with more legal fees to respond. Who pays that? We both know OBC won’t be shelling out a dime. It’s abusive and overly prosecutorial.
Also, a lot of people don’t want to go into details because they don’t want targeted themselves. I personally know two attorneys fighting bs charges from OBC. I won’t divulge because I was told in confidence, but I sure as hell will never trust the state bar.
I would read 71015 but the crapfest that is the Supreme Court's website has been unable to work properly for over a month now. Ridiculous and shameful.
Guest
Anonymous
January 30, 2023 11:41 pm
@ 3:12 PM – Have you thought about a career with the OBC? Or maybe a big law firm that is trying to crush the solos? Maybe just hunt the solos down for game? I got an idea, how about every solo in Nevada wear a star on their jackets for the crime of hanging their own shingle out? Yeah, there is a saying about walking 1000 miles in the shoes of another?
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2023 12:47 am
Its hard to like OBC, but you knuckleheads make it easier.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2023 12:51 am
Why does Crawford post on Facebook all the high end dining he does and post pictures of him eating alone at high end places for dinner when the guy is in bankruptcy court? How does he have access to a credit card these days? Is anyone else bothered by this?
Those posts are sad, in a very pathetic way. To me, the posts give off the feeling of a man whose life is alone and void and yet still seeks reassurance that it has meaning and purpose. If I hadn't read about him in the papers, I would almost feel sorry for him.
People have known about Crawford since he got his license back. No doubt OBC got complaints about him that were ignored, just like they did with Graham. Interesting how that goes when you’ve got money to spread around.
I can tell you why as someone who knows Doug and as someone who served a suspension: pathos. Doug has nothing left. He is alone, aging, has lost his practice, is losing his license for the last time. There is no coming back from this. He wants to give the impression of (or more accurately to feel) normalcy. His Facebook posts are self-laudatory at a time that no one is lauding him. He posts about dining alone but presents that he is living as he always has. That is partially true. Doug has always been a lonely man seeking attention and approval. Nothing has changed.
I have passed the point of being angered by what he did and now simply feel sorry for him. In some ways I even worry for him that the sadness, loneliness and reality of his situation will catch up with him. Until then let him live in the world of set backgrounds that he is painting for himself.
7:20 PM here. I take no pleasure in his plight, 9:07 AM. My sympathy goes first to his alleged victims. If half of what is alleged is true, he is a predator.
9:07 here. Oh I have no love lost for Doug to be clear. And I have plenty of sympathy for his victims known and unknown (I happened to formerly employ some of them). But I can feel pity for a man who has pissed away everything that he had, lost and got back and now is forfeiting again. He is riding the bomb of his own making all of the way into the ground. And I do worry that the horrors of his self-caused predicament will come back to lead him to even darker places that we discussed last week.
Guest
Anonymous
January 31, 2023 5:56 pm
OBC-Let me chime in here. Before Hooge was in place, there was a huge backlog of cases. This may have been the demise of David Clark. Granted Hooge got more staff and a plan to eliminate the backlog. But they managed to do so. Now they are focusing on more petty and reprimand stuff. It used to be that Bar Counsel only went after those who stole or committed the most egregious violations like abandoning clients. One thing we don't want to happen is that they push a legislative bill through which gives authority to an independent licensing board. Or they give discipline directly to the Supreme Court and they
appoint a Disciplinary Judge to hear cases like they have now in Arizona.
Here is your chance. I have heard a lot of complaining about the Nevada State Bar on this blog and their persecution of SOLOs, etc. The perfect storm has occurred in my life (retiring, have the money, have the will power) that has brought me to lead the fight. This is not a knee-jerk reaction to just receiving a Grievance or something. I have pondered this over for roughly two years. I am suing the SBN within the next 60 days. I have my own legal theories of course. And, if the NSB follows this blog, I do not want to give them up here. However, in the interest of crowd-sourcing, I ask the following. What do you think the best legal theory justifying a suit for their relentless persecution of SOLOs? What about the Equal Protection Clause as the largest client base is comprised of protected classes and the SOLO, in my case, represents that class, i.e., an attack on me is an attack on them. I understand the SBN will litigate hard, so I want it to be rock solid. Before you hammer me too hard, I have my own theories and the Also, what is most likely to survive the inevitable MTD. Also, I now live in AZ but am licensed in NV. I am a long-time civ lit lawyer – I wish I knew more Con Law as I think it might lean that way. How does the TNI article above affect this? I read Wikinomics a long time ago and crowdsourcing is a great thing – welcome any insights e.g., effect of publicity as a public record, effect on focus of Bar, who will likely defend them, etc.? Thank you.
Your retirement fund is going to take a hit when you lose and have to pay SBN's attorney fees. Lol.
It would be worth it to me if the attendant publicity altered their course a bit and saved some
Op back – one problem is the nevada Supreme Court effectively sets tone that’s why needs to be in federal court, basing my complaint reasoning off a successful one in another district, but realize as soon as I file I’m done up there but I was anyway, I understand the legal side I hope, what I also need help with is the practical side – wouldn’t they have to hire firm for federal court because know of no there qualified – sorry typing at lunch
Just some friendly advice but before filing anything I'd set it aside for a few months and not touch it or think about it. Then go back and re-read everything and decide if it is worth doing. If you still have the same fire in your gut, go for it.
Good luck with the NSC.
This is a bad idea, OP. Enjoy your well earned retirement.
Agree with 1:37, this is a bad idea. How are you going to "prove" they only go after solos and small firms? Waterboarding? They're going to say that they don't "go" after anybody, they respond to client complaints, and the clients of big firm's don't complain. And you're going to handle this, based on your memory of con law from law school? This is a bad idea.
In the wise words of Elsa – Let it go. You’re retired. Also – as a practitioner who focuses on con law matters – you will lose. Trust me. There is limited to no due process in admin law. another person shed some light on the equal protection issues. There is no path on your facts. Live well and do something constructive with your time if you really want to help SOLO’s – mentor, who knows. Don’t destroy your happiness with litigation against the Bar.
I want to first say that I applaud you and I am happy to talk to you and theorize with you. I can tell you with absolute truth that not only they go after solos and small firms, but I can tell you with certainty that their legal theories for the basis of punishment are illegal, immoral and literally do not follow the law after they dispense erroneous discipline to duly licensed members of this bar.
This is not a pontification of ivory tower theories; I can give names of attorneys reprimanded on the basis of flawed legal analysis by their “legal experts” I can tell you with absolute certainty that they have ignored federal law when coming to their conclusions as to whether suspend or disbar an attorney that they do not like or they want to get rid of. They have destroyed lives of people I know personally.
From a totally objective standpoint, please note that there have been federal lawsuits in 17 different states challenging the state bar’s scope and power, as well as their unilateral decisions as to where to put their monies and which political narratives to promote. There are incompetent bullies in every jurisdiction.
As I friend once told me in law school, “I might be small but when I go up against a bully and knock a tooth out, they will think twice about fighting me”. You might not win but knocking a tooth out may do the job, metaphorically speaking.
These people heading the OBC are incompetent bullies and need to be called in front of a real court (9th Circuit Court of Appeals) and be called on the carpet for their nonsense in dispensing whatever it is they call it when they want to punish specific people in Nevada. Maybe a nice fine and injunctive relief to this state bar might do the trick.
I say the 9th Circuit because I went to high school with a number of these local judges and even a few federal judges. The local judges don’t want to rock the boat. They don’t want to jeopardize their positions and salaries dealing with these low hires in the State Bar of Nevada.
Remember, they will not touch certain attorneys until they literally have been convicted in a criminal court and had their criminal acts blasted on the evening news. I would state that the only reason they would take action on these media events is because they know that if they don’t, the spotlight would shine on them and there would be questions why they refuse to make any kind of comment.
Nope, personally I am tired of being threatened by these bullies and I would be happy to help you shine a light on these incompetent bureaucrats and their heavy handed treatment to solos and small firms.
If you are interested in talking to me as to specific names, actions and so forth, I am happy to help you out. My email address is gerlachdrive1968@proton.me
The equal protection theory is interesting, but I am fairly certain that showing discriminatory effect (which is what you seem to be claiming) is not enough. You must prove discriminatory intent, as well. In other words, you have to show it was their intent to harm the clients in the protected classes. Very difficult.
Op back – thank you for the thoughtful responses and advice. I want to consider all and respond intelligently. But before that I would note 2 things: 1) I expect the suit to be very difficult but my primary goal is the exposure 2) re proof is solo bias, think of this ALL but a couple times in last 25 years of discipline are small firms 3) the fuel in me is that one time the bar accused me of X and I showed them a document of not X and they wouldn’t give me time of day, I waited and waited and waited until no longer under their thumb, and they will now give me time in court
And dear 1968 – please expect an email – thank you
@ 2:52 pm – Agreed however I believe that there is a distinct class of legal practitioners that OBC has been singling out over the past ten+ years that they may or may not be aware of. Additionally, I also believe there is a commerce clause violation that they are not thinking about. Let the chips fall where they may. Look at the lawsuit out of Arizona from the Goldwater Institute that lay out half the theory to take the OBC to task.
The OBC does not do enough. They are cleaning up after decades of lawyers completing ignoring the NRPC and the judges whose election funding is 95% from these lawyers looking the other way. Every honest, competent, hard working lawyer in this state would like to see a huge purge of the lawyers that give the rest of us a bad name. Maybe this purge is finally starting. Nevada is the laughing stock of the US with its bar members and district courts.
I don't think you would have standing to bring such a suit unless they came after you personally. You can't sue for generalized grievances outisde of a few exceptions. I don't think that just being a member of the bar would give you standing. Just a thought. May have to find someone to be a plaintiff for you who they have gone after.
Agreed at @2:58. Virtually every solo in this state needs to be prosecuted by OBC to get them back on the straight and narrow and to convince them that the NRPC are not mere suggestions but binding rules that they violate at their peril. I'm sick of all the solos not being prosecuted for their ethical violations and poor service to their clients. Despite all the tough talk on this blog, one must solos are pursued by OBC they start pissing their pants and surrender with a guilty plea on the spot. And for the few that attempt to stand their ground, OBC is rightfully pursuing harsh punishments so they experience a severe penalty for risking trial and not pleading guilty.
Don't you need to have a client who has been aggrieved? I agree with a great deal of what you are saying, but it sounds like you might have a standing problem.
So you're doing it on principle to make the world a better place for our law community. When clients say they want to do something for for the greater good and not for themselves, I run. But good luck you Mr. Quixote.
@ 3:00 PM – They came after me personally and erroneously. I cannot go into it further. However, I have the facts and the law on my side.
@ 3:12 PM – The problem is not going after every single solo in the State (since most of them are not doing bad things). It is the problem that the OBC knows the bad actors and they are not going after the bad actors because they do not want to alienate those powerful attorneys who are embedded in the community and will give them a fight that would deplete the war chest of the OBC to take them on. Cowards. And as far as going after EVERY SOLO in the state and making them kneel before you and kissing your ring? Do you not see the irony in your statement? I am assuming you work for the OBC making fascists statements about admitting to guilt that is not there. What a little person you must be,
What a bunch of crybabies. Do any of you actually work in the courts? Break the rules, face the consequences. Your clients have to follow the rules and the laws yet you cry when someone enforces the clearly worded rules against you when you break them? Some free legal advice, follow the rules of professional conduct and you will never even think about OBC
This is NOT a solicitation. Just putting this over here . . .
1. Hafter v. Clark, 992 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (D. Nev. 2014)
2. Breck v. State Bar, 3:12-cv-00649-MMD-VPC (“The State of Nevada has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity, so it is immune from Breck’s damages claims. See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.031(3). Eleventh Amendment immunity extends beyond the state itself. “[A]rms of the [s]tate” also enjoy the Amendment’s protection. Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 70 (1989). We have previously recognized that both the Nevada Supreme Court and the SBN are arms of the State of Nevada, and so are immune from § 1983 damages claims. O’Connor v. Nevada, 686 F.2d 749, 750 (9th Cir. 1982). As a result, the Eleventh Amendment precludes Breck’s damages claims against all the Institutional Defendants. We affirm the district court’s dismissal of Breck’s complaint as to these defendants.”).
Not a fan of OBC, but I can imagine it is quite a thrill to corner an arrogant solo, give them no avenue of escape, and then make them kiss the ring and plead guilty. Probably pretty entertaining to look at the image on the solo’s website and juxtapose it with the image of them kneeling before you begging for mercy.
The key word here is guilty. The cases that are published on the supreme court's site and summarized each month in the bar's magazine do not show any abuse. I have not found even one where the lawyer made some minor error. They are all egregious violations. Follow the rules or change your profession. It is time to for people that consider themselves professionals to start acting like adults.
Anyone who thinks avoiding a bar complaint is all that’s needed to stay out of OBC’s crosshairs is sadly misinformed. Since you’re ranting about reading the rules, go review them for yourself. There are many rules that are so vaguely written, you could be prosecuted by OBC for virtually anything. Not only is OBC overly prosecutorial, they are also hurting people. When you take away a person’s profession and their purpose, you do real harm. We’re bordering on a suicide every 6 months in the Vegas legal community. That’s a real problem and OBC and the Commission on Judicial Discipline are right in the middle of it. You might enjoy writing some snarky comment about just “follow the rules” on this anonymous blog, but that’s not an answer when you have OBC actively targeting people for no read other than to get a win.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Give some solid, truthful examples of "overly prosecutorial" and where they are use VAGUE rules to persecute people. I have seen none yet I see tons of examples where nothing is done every month. I have seen no one present 3-5 cases of this "out of control" OBC that people complain about. Post 3-5 solid examples for all of us to judge. Otherwise I will continue to believe the complainers are just mad because they got caught doing something they do every day. Like the speeder complaining about radar.
I will give you one example of a case of the out of control OBC– Asa Ginapp's case. Case 71015. Disbarment secured based upon perjurious testimony by the OBC Paralegal on the case. Turned into a 6 month suspension thanks to people caring enough to stand up.
Didn’t you see the comments the other day? OBC missed a deadline and still filed a brief arguing they should be allowed to blow deadlines. That forced the attorney to incur legal fees in filing a response brief. We all know if we miss a deadline, we’re toast. For some reason, OBC thinks they’re special so the respondent gets hit with more legal fees to respond. Who pays that? We both know OBC won’t be shelling out a dime. It’s abusive and overly prosecutorial.
Also, a lot of people don’t want to go into details because they don’t want targeted themselves. I personally know two attorneys fighting bs charges from OBC. I won’t divulge because I was told in confidence, but I sure as hell will never trust the state bar.
I would read 71015 but the crapfest that is the Supreme Court's website has been unable to work properly for over a month now. Ridiculous and shameful.
@ 3:12 PM – Have you thought about a career with the OBC? Or maybe a big law firm that is trying to crush the solos? Maybe just hunt the solos down for game? I got an idea, how about every solo in Nevada wear a star on their jackets for the crime of hanging their own shingle out? Yeah, there is a saying about walking 1000 miles in the shoes of another?
Its hard to like OBC, but you knuckleheads make it easier.
Why does Crawford post on Facebook all the high end dining he does and post pictures of him eating alone at high end places for dinner when the guy is in bankruptcy court? How does he have access to a credit card these days? Is anyone else bothered by this?
Flemings is hardly high end dining.
Those posts are sad, in a very pathetic way. To me, the posts give off the feeling of a man whose life is alone and void and yet still seeks reassurance that it has meaning and purpose. If I hadn't read about him in the papers, I would almost feel sorry for him.
Doug is a lovable guy who did some terrible things.
He was definitely trying to get loved for sure.
People have known about Crawford since he got his license back. No doubt OBC got complaints about him that were ignored, just like they did with Graham. Interesting how that goes when you’ve got money to spread around.
I can tell you why as someone who knows Doug and as someone who served a suspension: pathos. Doug has nothing left. He is alone, aging, has lost his practice, is losing his license for the last time. There is no coming back from this. He wants to give the impression of (or more accurately to feel) normalcy. His Facebook posts are self-laudatory at a time that no one is lauding him. He posts about dining alone but presents that he is living as he always has. That is partially true. Doug has always been a lonely man seeking attention and approval. Nothing has changed.
I have passed the point of being angered by what he did and now simply feel sorry for him. In some ways I even worry for him that the sadness, loneliness and reality of his situation will catch up with him. Until then let him live in the world of set backgrounds that he is painting for himself.
He is not a lovable person and deserves zero sympathy. He is and always has been a predator. Our sympathy should be reserved for his victims.
7:20 PM here. I take no pleasure in his plight, 9:07 AM. My sympathy goes first to his alleged victims. If half of what is alleged is true, he is a predator.
9:07 here. Oh I have no love lost for Doug to be clear. And I have plenty of sympathy for his victims known and unknown (I happened to formerly employ some of them). But I can feel pity for a man who has pissed away everything that he had, lost and got back and now is forfeiting again. He is riding the bomb of his own making all of the way into the ground. And I do worry that the horrors of his self-caused predicament will come back to lead him to even darker places that we discussed last week.
OBC-Let me chime in here. Before Hooge was in place, there was a huge backlog of cases. This may have been the demise of David Clark. Granted Hooge got more staff and a plan to eliminate the backlog. But they managed to do so. Now they are focusing on more petty and reprimand stuff. It used to be that Bar Counsel only went after those who stole or committed the most egregious violations like abandoning clients. One thing we don't want to happen is that they push a legislative bill through which gives authority to an independent licensing board. Or they give discipline directly to the Supreme Court and they
appoint a Disciplinary Judge to hear cases like they have now in Arizona.