- Quickdraw McLaw
- 55 Comments
- 112 Views
- Former Nevada AG Tudor Chirila Jr. arrested for 1972 murder in Hawaii. [RJ]
- Jason Frierson lays out his vision for his new role as U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada. [TNI]
- Longtime attorney and law professor Anthony Cabot finds joy as a sculptor. [RJ]
- Removing grass may increase urban heat. [Nevada Current]
- Congrats to the LV Aces on winning the WNBA championship!
"Are we going to get to the point where there’s going to be no landscaping outside, no grass? That’s very possible,” said Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak
Wow… just wow..
We live in a desert. Put fake grass, but there is a reason real grass doesn’t grow naturally here.
Not at my house. Eff that guy. He is toast anyway in a few weeks.
That's right. The lake isn't drying up. It's all an optical illusion. No need to conserve anything or to pay attention.
Yes, the lake is about to go "deadpool". Conservation isn't enough to stop this result. Clark County Commissioners' action agenda: build more houses!
The lawns, new homes and water use in Vegas are almost entirely inconsequential to Lake Mead at this point because our use is so small. The Lake is where it is because of climate change and agriculture in Arizona and California. Taking away the little grass we have left isn't going to make any difference.
See I wish someone would just explain the Lake Mead situation with concrete facts. Just publish the percentage of water used up by lawns, farming, business, etc. If we listen to 11:14 a.m. and others, we are to blame for the drought and water shortage. If we listen to 1:12p.m., it is agriculture. So which is it. We have a serious problem here in Southern Nevada, but the powers that be do not want to explain it clearly to us and what can be done about it. This is true about most issues facing our country.
Okay, Water facts. There's a Law of the River. It was originally worried that, since First Used = First Right, California's rapid growth would result in California getting all of the water. So, an inter-state compact was reached that apportioned acre-feet of the Colorado River between the Upper Basin (Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and New Mexico) and State of the Lower Basin (California, Arizona, Nevada). California gets 4.4 million acre-feet, Arizona gets 2.8 million acre-feet and Nevada gets 300,000 acre-feet. The allocations were decreased recently because we are in a Tier 2 Shortage. Nevada actually consumes about 242,000 acre-feet, so we're okay.
That said, Every Drop Counts. To the extent we can conserve water, we need to. But we can entirely eliminate Nevada's share and not make a significant dent in the amount of water consumed by Arizona and California together, which generally use the water for agriculture.
@148. Thanks. I believe that the allocations are up for renegotiations in the next couple of years, as well.
@ 1:48. Clear and intelligible explanation. But how much of our household water (NOT counting watering the lawns and trees and flowers) is recycled and re-used? If I shorten my shower, does that help reduce our water usage or not (because that gray water is recycled and reused)? Water used on the lawns does not flow into the sewers and is not recycled, I understand.
According to the SNWA, about 99% of the indoor water use is recycled. That's why, in contrast to other locations, you don't hear things like "turn off the water when you brush your teeth" or "take shorter showers." The water district has invested billions in trying to recapture every source of water there is. But indoor water use accounts for only about 40% of the water in service. The remaining 60% is consumptive use. It goes into the ground or evaporates. It doesn't get returned to the River. Because it doesn't go back to the River, it counts against the allocation. (If we take a gallon out, use it, treat it, and return a full gallon to the River, it doesn't count against the 300,000 acre-feet).
So the goal is to maximize return-flow credits by reducing consumptive use. Fewer grassy areas, watering lawns to minimize evaporation, restrictions on evaporative cooling, smaller pools, etc. Meanwhile, another concern is coming up next year. Certain Tribes had agreed to keep their allotment in Lake Mead in order to keep the water levels higher, and stave off future allotment reductions. Well, because not a lot a progress has been made between the Upper and Lower Basins, they're going to stop doing that in 2023. They'll take their 180k acre-feet and bank it elsewhere.
We are absolutely in Water Crisis Mode.
…..and there isn't shit that can be done about it.
Pray for rain.
A lot of prayer in today's blog. Praying about taking on OBC in these comments, praying for rain to relieve the water crisis. I'm a big believer in prayer, but prayer isn't a magic talisman to overcome bad decisions, singular or collective.
Don't think anyone ever said that it was. But, it can't hurt.
Yes, we use less than our allocation. But if the water is gone, the allocation is irrelevant.
Why doesn't anyone talk about removing palm trees, I see California is starting that plan. They consume a lot of water and don't provide much shade or reduction of Co2
Chirila was a *deputy* AG (ie line level attorney), not the real AG.
Serious question: I am thinking about publishing on this blog (with redacted references to a former client's name) all correspondence from and to the Nevada State Bar re a grievance. I would include my name. I would do this to expose some stuff I won't get into right now. My questions: Is there a rule that prohibits this? What do you think the result would be? There is that pesky rule that they always use when they can't find anything else, something like prejudicial to justice, etc. I realize I would be taking a big risk with the Bar but I have Prayed a lot about it and I went into law to fight for justice and as silly as that sounds, I feel in my heart I must do this. Any advice. Thank you
Based
By all correspondence are you suggesting you are going to publish the writings to and from your former client and the bar? Or just your own back and forth with the bar?
This seems like a bad idea. I don't think redacting the client's name saves you from violating confidentiality here. Plus, if you give the bar a reason to come after you, they will come after you.
Pay for a one hour consultation with another lawyer who you respect, but is not a friend of yours and discuss this thoroughly before you do anything that you cannot take back.
Don't do it.
Call Rob Bare or Dave Clark.
Perhaps you should give us some clue about what you hope to expose also. People might change their opinions based on the seriousness of your own grievance.
OP again, 10:36, No never with the client. Just between the Bar and protecting at all costs the client confidentiality. To be blunt, I do not think the legal community would believe what was done. Not conjecture, conspiracy theories, me hiding bad actions, etc. but what was actually, provably done and recorded by the Bar. I see a lot of "Don't do it" and I appreciate the advice but is there a rule or something that says that? Aren't the Nevada Supreme Court decisions public information? Thank you.
Your allegations will run hot for a day, then the bloggers will go back to complaining about Biden/Trump, court clerks and the rest. And you'll now be on their radar, even it they don't make a peep.
OP back. I am not just upset today or wanting to make a rash decision. I will take the advice of the blog and call a lawyer that is not a friend. I will report back to the blog my decision and why – of course, protecting all confidentiality and not revealing what lawyer I spoke to or what they advised. Despite what the Bar apparently thinks, I am a good guy/girl. Thank you.
When you mention whether SC decisions are public (they are), sounds like a grudge that's already been heard by the court. Let it go.
Didn't Bob Draskovich get some heat for going after a complaining client?
I think he got in trouble for making comments about a client who made a negative online review. OP here seems to have a beef with OBC.
Don't we all?
There but for the grace…………
These Bar proceedings, I strongly believe, are confidential, at least until they reach the point where someone is publicly reprimanded, or suspended or dis-barred.
And I don't think it is analyzed like some legal privilege in the sense that this confidentially is not limited to one party in the dispute,and that they have the ability to invoke it, or waive it, etc.
Instead, everyone involved–(the Bar, the attorney, the complaining witness, etc.) must respect this confidentiality, as must all members of the discipline panel, any collateral non-party witnesses, etc.
And, although I greatly respect that you are a person of faith, praying on the matter is really off point, as you have already decided that you would be morally okay with disclosure.
The point is whether it is legally/ethically permissible to disclose, and it clearly is not. And, no, the attorney you consult should not be your good friend, but instead should be an ethics specialist(yes, like Rob Bare).
But the best advice, by far, is to simply not do it, rather than consulting with people and considering it. Consider it no longer. Don't fly off half-cocked on some half-baked moral crusade and accomplish nothing except greatly complicating your life and career, while vindicating no sensible principle.
And 11:01 is on point that even if they don't actively pursue you at this time, you will be on their radar. But I say both happen–they aggressively pursue you at this time, plus you remain very much on their radar.
OP has been given very measured, solid advice to not proceed. Will be interesting to see what happens. I predict OP will not post, as discussed.
3:37 is correct – even if they don't come for you on this, they will keep you on their radar. Every minor complaint will turn into a full blown investigation. Don't do it.
Ah! Another solo is in the OBC gunsight. Maybe this helps a little. Some clients when they are sued, come in and want to lash out against their antagonist. I always counsel against it. Resist the urge until you are cleared, then publish or seek redress from OBC's over reach.
How did you know I am a SOLO?
Sounds like OP/Mr. Solo has already been in OBC's gunsite and lost, hence the reference to discussing the NSC's decision, which he didn't like. Why does OP think that "publishing" complaints about OBC in this echo chamber would have any impact? Some guy is still complaining about Stan, and he's been gone for years.
The damage Stan did lasts for years. And I really think 2:13 is Stan because I have noticed that whenever Stan is mentioned someone gets their panties twisted.
OBC is out of control. For those of us who work directly with clients (family, crim, probate, etc) instead of working for corporations, we're basically at the whim of the clients. If something doesn't go their way, regardless of the reason, we're facing a bar complaint. OBC seems bound and determined to prosecute just about every complaint they get. This profession is miserable enough without our own licensing organization knifing us every chance they get.
Personal story: I had a client who had buyer's remorse in family court. They filed an extensive complaint against me, basically accusing me of every single ethical violation in the book. I had properly papered the file and had documentation to show that every one of their allegations was false. But, that was under David Clark. Now, I think I might've been facing a hearing and been in real jeopardy. It's uncalled for.
On what basis could OBC get you under new leadership when there's no misappropriation of client funds, lack of communication, lack of diligence, etc.? Jesus, these flimsy complaints with zero substantiation get so old. But yes, OBC bringing a hypothetical case against you in this mythical alternate universe really is uncalled for.
4:24, because some things are debatable and subjective, ex: you make a 20 minute phone call explaining an Order. The Bar can say that was not diligent because you could have taken 30 minutes. If you do not believe that happens then you are naïve.
Pleeeeeeze. 4:24 still wins.
OP here – I practice in family court. Even on issues that we have actual caselaw on, a tremendous amount of it boils down to judicial discretion. 4:41 is exactly on point. When a client basically complains about every single thing you do and OBC is staffed by a pack of rabid pit bulls, there is no telling what they may or may not decide to pursue. Also, I was intentionally vague because I don't want to reveal who I am or who the client was. But congratulations to 4:24 on the win.
4:41 and 7:21 – simple solution. Put it in writing. E-mail, letter or even text.
Long story short, all these posts complaining about the Bar and Bar Counsel, could have the result(even if quite unintended) to empower and egg on 10:34 to publish all those discipline papers on this blog, which, as 3:37 points out in detail, would be disastrous for 10:34.
10:34 is obviously in a very vulnerable place, so let's try not to mish mash the message or combine two separate messages into one, thus leading 10:34 down the wrong road.
Let's spell it out. All these posts about how bad the posters think Bar Counsel has been, is a totally separate matter from the fact that 10:34 should NOT undertake his urge to publish al these letters and filings
OP here – I agree w 8:39 that 10:34 should NOT post the letters and filings.
On a separate note – I DID paper my file. All my work and communication with the client was documented. My point was that under previous bar counsels, I felt confident that I'd done what needed to be done, I'd papered my file, and the matter was easily resolved. Under current bar counsel, I am not confident of such an outcome. I feel like instead of a review to verify that I'd done my job and the client was just disgruntle, the current bar counsel would instead pick apart my file, looking for an excuse to prosecute.
4:24 wins.
Anyone who's lived around a forest can tell you the temperature is cooler when you are surrounded by trees. I figured this out 20 years ago when riding a motorcycle. When I was under trees or they lined the road (even at night, so it's not due to them blocking the sun), the temperature was markedly cooler. And the temp would go from cooler to warmer depending on the amount of trees. But yeah, let's take out all greenery, pretend it's the climate's fault and force everyone to drive electric vehicles that we won't be able to charge because Lake Mead is dry.
Why not simply adapt to the climate and terrain we live in? Deserts don’t naturally have a lot of trees because there is a lack of water. That is like saying you want ice sculptures like they have in Iceland even though we live in the desert. If you want trees, then move to a place with trees.
Cottonwood trees do grow naturally here, as they do in many other places throughout the intermountain west. The original Las Vegas spring was lined by them. If you go to Tule Springs or Corn Creek you can see some beautiful, majestic examples. The problem is that they require *a lot* of space, far more than the typical footprint of a suburban Vegas home. They can do a lot of damage to cement and asphalt, even in a commercial setting. So the idea of trees in the desert isn't ahistorical, but it is unfortunately impractical in an urban setting.
Wikipedia says otherwise
Funny to hear this argument after the following articles that call for planting more trees. https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2022/04/29/tree-planting-program-launched-to-mitigate-a-severe-las-vegas-heat-island-effect/
#FreetheTrees
Nobody is advocating for removing trees. People are advocating for removing grass that isn't at a residence or doesn't serve a recreational purpose like parks and sports fields.