The prices of Raiders Stadium reserved seating PSLs were published yesterday. [RJ]
Thomas Fougere won the special election Republican primary for Clark County Public Administrator. [RJ]
The Supreme Court hearing on ADKT 0534 proposing mandatory professional liability insurance is set for today at 3:00 p.m. If you want to review any of the comments submitted, you can do that here and, typically, you can view the live stream of arguments on this page.
Also, Fuck the Raiders. They took the largest public subsidy for a stadium in history. Everyone who owns property in Clark County will be on the hook when the room tax revenue falls short.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 4:36 pm
The stadium deal directed by Governor (elect) Sisolak will haunt Nevada for years. We get a stadium that citizens won't be able to afford. Sisolak and his cronies get to rub shoulders with Mark Davis, players and their entourages. The citizen's pay the bill so Las Vegas can be identified with "Thugs, Criminals, And All Around Scary People." https://bit.ly/2uL1yDo There is so much good that could have been done with the stadium money for the benefit of seniors, veterans, parents, students and kids. Instead, our political leaders sell us out.
On a related topic, it's a sad state of affairs when the best we can do for the elections is:
Sisolak (cronie politician) v Laxalt (idiot)
"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you"
Or taking that same 15,000 and using it to buy NFL Sunday Ticket, a sick 100 inch TV, and then cater every single game at your house for all your friends. All while pocketing the savings. Crazy.
But then you couldn't share seat space with the blinged- and amped-up fan who bought a seat from the estate of the license-holder who attended one game in puffy Raider gear, in August, in Las Vegas, and died of heat stroke. You also couldn't buy $20 beer, or park at UNLV and ride a shuttle bus to the stadium with 40 of your closest friends who did not anticipate 97 degree temperatures at the opening game.
Stadium is inside and temperature controlled, so the 97 degree temp would only be until you get inside.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 5:46 pm
My favorite terrible stadium fact is this: NDOT says it will cost $900 million to upgrade the roads around the stadium site to handle the increased traffic. That cost isn't included in the room tax funds – it has to be funded separately. In the 2017 legislative session, they appropriated $200 million for stadium-related road construction.
Just let that sink in. Come 2020, we are going to have $700 million worth of traffic jams on the 15 and Dean Martin. Thanks, you unbelievable crony capitalist jags!
I totally agree with these statements about the public financed stadium. The problem is that we as citizens did not do much of anything to stop it from happening. Unless the public is willing to spend time to be educated about the issues and get out there in protesting the crony capitalism, it will continue. This is corporate welfare and there is no other way to describe it.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 5:47 pm
Concerning the article about the threatened lawsuit, these lawsuits filed by one candidate against the other never achieve their purposes, and usually simply result in a candidate(often a losing candidate) needing to continue to finance an expensive piece of litigation post-
election.
They are filed for two reasons.
The first reason is to stop the opponent from continuing to disseminate the objected to material in broadcast ads, print ads, campaign websites, etc. This never works–at least it never works in the higher rungs of political races.
The second reason these lawsuits are filed is the hope that the public will view the objected to material as false if the aggrieved candidate went to al the trouble of filing a lawsuit to stop the opposing camp from disseminating such material. However, the opposite is the case as people tend to believe material is more likely true if a seemingly desperate, angry candidate filed a lawsuit to make it all stop. Ask 10 lay people you know who are not associated with the legal profession. They place little or no credibility on campaign-cycle lawsuits by one candidate to another, and take a far dimmer view of the one who filed the lawsuit, than of the person sued.
So, all that is accomplished is there is now much more media focus on such issues on account of such law suit being filed.
Both major parties resort to this tactic in pretty equal numbers. They would not if they were guided by the statistics and studies which show two things:(1)Such lawsuits almost never achieve the desired political purpose during the campaign, and, in fact, only make matters worse; (2) the candidates who resort to suing the other candidate usually lose;(3)once the election is over, and the candidate being sued wins the race, and the losing candidate wishes to drop the lawsuit as there is no longer any rational purpose to waste money on it, the other side does not agree to do so unless their attorney fees are paid, etc.
So, candidates should think long and hard and realize that these suits never accomplish the desired political purpose, they in fact make matters worse and lose votes, and then after the election you are stuck with a pointless piece of expensive, ludicrous litigation.
And the statements on the website allege ethical and possibly criminal violations. In addition, Laxalt apparently approved fees for the same lawyer to represent the State and served as co-counsel with her. He's either clueless or malicious or both.
Whenever these lawsuits are filed, they always concern issues that the candidate should have realized would be raised by the opposing side.
So, people need to grow a thicker skin if they are going to venture into high level, state-wide politics.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen(or whatever other clichés apply).
Conduct the campaign in the political arena, not the courts. If your opponent is a lying toad, call him/her out on it in front of the entire public, rather than litigating the matter in the courts(which will not get to trial till years after the election is over).
Dear 10:54, I am sure you did not mean anything by your use of the word "toad," I am not accusing you of anything, I personally do not like the oversensitive PC culture we live in but I do like my fellow attorneys and always looking to help, so just wanted you to know that "toad" is an often used derogatory term for African Americans, a quick look in the Urban Dictionary verifies this, just an FYI
(a) you can find any definition you want on Urban Dictionary;
(b) if you can't find the one you want, you can always add it yourself;
(c) I didn't see any definition of toad on UD that applied to African Americans. Admittedly, there are 9 pages of definitions. But its not in the top 7.
I know this is not PC, but I kind of resent when others get to decide what I mean by my use of common terms with a variety of esoteric slang interpretions. Some words (N word for example) transcend that but toad does not, imho.
Dear 12:15. Accusing 10:54 of using "toad" as a derogatory term for African-Americans? Really? You need to better calibrate your research skills with your analytical skills. Not being a prisoner, most people I know that call someone a "toad" do so because they think of TOADS, not African-Americans. You know, toads — the homely amphibian with typically bumpy skin that led homo sapiens to derogatorily associate them with warts?
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 7:33 pm
Serious @ 12:15. Give me a break or get off this blog. (PS- I am not even 10:54).
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride…the last time I was down at the RJC
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 7:34 pm
It's hard to keep up on which words and phrases are "racist." Here's a link to a website my Bishop showed me and I find informative. http://www.rsdb.org/ It's the Racial Slur Database. "Toad" is derogatory on the RSDB.
Who knew that when I let my wife know that we were out of TP, I was in fact inviting her to go out and get some "Typical Pakistanis" and bring them back to the house. Or that when Sarah Connor advises a guard that there are 206 bones in the human body, she must have been uttering a slur against Jews. Or that "boogie man" is a slur against whites, unless you shorten it to just "boogie" in which case it's a slur against blacks.
6:44, is that a slur against Natives? Red on the outside, white on the inside?
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 7:45 pm
Dear 12:33, I was very polite and professional, this term has been verified on several websites incl rsdb.org, not sure why you are so offended, I just saw no reason to offend 47 million people when in all likelihood the writer did not even know how offensive that is, why are u so shaken as to demand I leave?
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 8:25 pm
Again, I'm 10:54, and I clearly did not know, and it's my bad.
It's clear I did not know because when I discussed the approach that should be taken(which included the term in question) the discussion directly and specifically centered around a race where both candidates are white males.
I was simply trying to make a point of how useless these politically motivated lawsuits are, and instead candidates should fight back in the public arena by calling out the offending side as a lying (fill in the blank).N
next time I'll say something like "lying dog" rather than "lying toad", but I'll first check to see if "dog" is now associated as some sort of racially-motivated moniker. I don't think it is, but I agree that these days it's always best to check beforehand.
This is why words without context are meaningless. Words are only derogatory when their CONTEXT is derogatory. As you indicate, in discussing a race with 2 Caucasian candidates, for anyone to get offended at the word "toad" is silly.
I predict the mandatory malpractice rule will be enacted with carve outs for in house counsel, government lawyers, pro bono lawyers and maybe even semi-retired lawyers. It is a painfully flawed rule, but these are the reasons it will pass: (1) It is presented under the guise good intentions (who can question a desire to protect the public?); and (2) the money and the power are behind it. The big fish in the pond see an opportunity to kill the little fish, all while pretending to have done it for a noble reason.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 9:12 pm
For anyone trying to watch the live stream, I couldn't get it to work in Chrome, but it works in Internet Explorer.
They just issued a Discipline Decision 4.5 years after it started so the Supremes are way behind schedule (despite them telling you that they have done such a great job catching up).
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 10:22 pm
When I retire, and I preserve my best court performances for audio archival purposes, should I choose to preserve them with the sonic breath and layered dimensions of stereophonic recordings, or should I preserve my best court arguments with the warmth, intimacy and immediacy that monophonic recordings offer?
And when involved in the final mixing process, should I have my voice high in the mix, and the counter-arguments of opposing counsel, and judicial criticisms of my argument, buried in the mix to the point they are virtually indecipherable?
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 10:26 pm
To:3:22. Keep it simple. For hearings you won, keep the judge's rulings even higher in the mix than your own voice. For hearings you lost(and I infer from your commentary that hearings you lost greatly outnumber the hearings that you won) bury the judge's voice in the mix.
This all means that for most hearings, we should be really only hearing your voice(if I am correct that your losing hearings greatly outnumber the ones you won).
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 10:26 pm
Who is speaking for the state bar? He's making blanket statements of conclusion and not a single question from the Court.
Gene Leverty is no longer the President as of last week. Rick Pocker is the present President. However I presume they let Leverty (the former Insurance Commissioner) to speak about generating business for insurance companies.
Yes, Gene Leverty (2017-2018 Bar President) is presenting the State Bar's position. Mr. Leverty stated at the beginning of his presentation that the members of the Board of Governors (i.e., those who served between July 2017 and June 2018) unanimously approved the Petition to mandate malpractice insurance.
Hardesty surprisingly on our side, it seems, by noting that insurance companies may deny issuing a policy based upon frivolous factors, such as a non-meritorious bar complaint! Pleasantly surprised!
Only having watched this hearing and the one on audits, Pickering strikes me as a reasonable justice willing to ask legit questions. Here she is now asking about what the rates will be in 20 years–thinking long term.
Rates could go down when the insurance pool gets larger, but captive insurance markets don't always work like that. When a person is captively insured as a condition of licensure, insurance companies have an incentive to raise rates until they reach the point at which lawyers start getting economically forced out of the market.
There is no evidence insurance rates will actually go down, just conjecture on poor economic theory.
Cherry says he is worried about how this will affect Eglet's firm. Eglet says he pays hundreds of thousands a year for insurance. Umbrella policy with lloyds of London, Eglet isn't worried about how this will affect him.
A few people spoke against. Hopefully the Court really reads the comments in opposition and acknowledges that this was set on (relatively) short notice.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 11:23 pm
To argue that this should be decided by the Legislature is to tempt fate. That's the LAST thing we want.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 11:31 pm
Nope. Hardesty is against us.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 11:38 pm
Hardesty wants answers from insurance companies. Discussion about rewriting the proposed rule. Hardesty says in general to economics, we have seen an awful lot of lawyers disciplined for theft and in those, restitution was ordered, but is an idle promise. He doesn't seem to understand that insurance won't pay out for theft.
Furthemore Hardesty–while you were so busy screwing attorneys to the wall in cases that involved no theft–you should have thought about the effect on insurability and being able to return to practice.
Sounds like the State Bar might be asked to start over.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 11:53 pm
Here's a question: What happens when the insurance market hardens and rates double and triple like in the late 80's and early 90's? Like any commodity, insurance rates are subject to supply and demand. If there is capital available in the market, then many carriers write insurance at low premiums. If there isn't available capital, there will be less insurance, insurers leave the market and rates will go up. The remaining insurance companies don't care if rates go up. It won't matter to Bob Eglet or any of the mega firms who could eventually self-insure at $250,000 per lawyer. But, to anyone else practicing on Virginia Street, Idaho Street or Bridger, it will matter. A blanket rule that has the potential of putting lawyers out of business is not good for lawyers or consumers.
And how much do you want to bet the most uninsurable among lawyers don't carry malpractice now as it is? In fact, there's probably a bunch of self-selection for low risk policyholders in malpractice insurance generally. Require everyone to jump into the pool without a must-carry requirement like under the Affordable Care Act, and everyone is going to suddenly find themselves paying much higher premiums to spread around a lot more risk. The State Bar needs to do a much more serious economic analysis, independent of the Bar and of the insurers, to fully grasp what could happen.
Guest
Anonymous
July 18, 2018 11:56 pm
What a completely half-baked, under-researched clusterf**k. We want you to pass a rule that could literally disbar lawyers in this State merely on the whim of insurance companies who could render them uninsurable.
I heard him say that he never disclosed a claim to anyone because of course he never had a claim against him. And he regulates when he thinks attorneys are lying.
The Rules of Professional Conduct also apply to judges. Too bad Stan isn't around to do something. Some of the Revised Code of Judicial Conduct:
Rule 1.2. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Rule 1.3. Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office. A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
Note: Draw your own conclusions with this one.
Rule 2.15. Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct.
(A) A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.
. . .
(C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action. . . .
No but there is a panel who does handle judicial discipline.
Guest
Anonymous
July 19, 2018 12:09 am
My hope is that the Supreme Court denies the ADKT and directs the State Bar to conduct more research. Leverty's term is over and maybe Rick Pocker finds more important things to spend the State Bar's efforts on. Goodbye and good riddance Mr. Leverty.
You should settle it son, because I am in it for the long run.
Guest
Anonymous
July 19, 2018 2:40 pm
I happened to catch some of the Mandatory Malpractice argument. Did no one speak or was permitted to speak in opposition to the proposal? Did only the proponents of the proposal speak? There were over 135 plus attorneyd in opposition including one newly elected board member who joined the Joint Opposition. There were individual attorneys who raised many issues with comments in opposition. Two Justices speaking up against it and asking questions (Justice Hardesty and Justice Pickering) could be significant. Remember that only one Justice spoke up against the Mandatory Malpractice Insurance. There were more attorneys opposing this proposal than any other requirement. I hope the Court will reject it.
PSLs are stupid expensive. im better off buying more VGK season tickets
Also, Fuck the Raiders. They took the largest public subsidy for a stadium in history. Everyone who owns property in Clark County will be on the hook when the room tax revenue falls short.
The stadium deal directed by Governor (elect) Sisolak will haunt Nevada for years. We get a stadium that citizens won't be able to afford. Sisolak and his cronies get to rub shoulders with Mark Davis, players and their entourages. The citizen's pay the bill so Las Vegas can be identified with "Thugs, Criminals, And All Around Scary People." https://bit.ly/2uL1yDo There is so much good that could have been done with the stadium money for the benefit of seniors, veterans, parents, students and kids. Instead, our political leaders sell us out.
On a related topic, it's a sad state of affairs when the best we can do for the elections is:
Sisolak (cronie politician) v Laxalt (idiot)
"Where have you gone, Joe DiMaggio, our nation turns its lonely eyes to you"
I'm voting none of the above.
Co-signed.
I like that.
Or taking that same 15,000 and using it to buy NFL Sunday Ticket, a sick 100 inch TV, and then cater every single game at your house for all your friends. All while pocketing the savings. Crazy.
But then you couldn't share seat space with the blinged- and amped-up fan who bought a seat from the estate of the license-holder who attended one game in puffy Raider gear, in August, in Las Vegas, and died of heat stroke. You also couldn't buy $20 beer, or park at UNLV and ride a shuttle bus to the stadium with 40 of your closest friends who did not anticipate 97 degree temperatures at the opening game.
Stadium is inside and temperature controlled, so the 97 degree temp would only be until you get inside.
My favorite terrible stadium fact is this: NDOT says it will cost $900 million to upgrade the roads around the stadium site to handle the increased traffic. That cost isn't included in the room tax funds – it has to be funded separately. In the 2017 legislative session, they appropriated $200 million for stadium-related road construction.
Just let that sink in. Come 2020, we are going to have $700 million worth of traffic jams on the 15 and Dean Martin. Thanks, you unbelievable crony capitalist jags!
I totally agree with these statements about the public financed stadium. The problem is that we as citizens did not do much of anything to stop it from happening. Unless the public is willing to spend time to be educated about the issues and get out there in protesting the crony capitalism, it will continue. This is corporate welfare and there is no other way to describe it.
Concerning the article about the threatened lawsuit, these lawsuits filed by one candidate against the other never achieve their purposes, and usually simply result in a candidate(often a losing candidate) needing to continue to finance an expensive piece of litigation post-
election.
They are filed for two reasons.
The first reason is to stop the opponent from continuing to disseminate the objected to material in broadcast ads, print ads, campaign websites, etc. This never works–at least it never works in the higher rungs of political races.
The second reason these lawsuits are filed is the hope that the public will view the objected to material as false if the aggrieved candidate went to al the trouble of filing a lawsuit to stop the opposing camp from disseminating such material. However, the opposite is the case as people tend to believe material is more likely true if a seemingly desperate, angry candidate filed a lawsuit to make it all stop. Ask 10 lay people you know who are not associated with the legal profession. They place little or no credibility on campaign-cycle lawsuits by one candidate to another, and take a far dimmer view of the one who filed the lawsuit, than of the person sued.
So, all that is accomplished is there is now much more media focus on such issues on account of such law suit being filed.
Both major parties resort to this tactic in pretty equal numbers. They would not if they were guided by the statistics and studies which show two things:(1)Such lawsuits almost never achieve the desired political purpose during the campaign, and, in fact, only make matters worse; (2) the candidates who resort to suing the other candidate usually lose;(3)once the election is over, and the candidate being sued wins the race, and the losing candidate wishes to drop the lawsuit as there is no longer any rational purpose to waste money on it, the other side does not agree to do so unless their attorney fees are paid, etc.
So, candidates should think long and hard and realize that these suits never accomplish the desired political purpose, they in fact make matters worse and lose votes, and then after the election you are stuck with a pointless piece of expensive, ludicrous litigation.
Who the Hell is advising these people?
The letter demanding retraction is not about statements made about a candidate but about the candidate's lawyer, who is not running for anything.
And the statements on the website allege ethical and possibly criminal violations. In addition, Laxalt apparently approved fees for the same lawyer to represent the State and served as co-counsel with her. He's either clueless or malicious or both.
Laura Fitzsimmons — YOU GO GIRL!
Whenever these lawsuits are filed, they always concern issues that the candidate should have realized would be raised by the opposing side.
So, people need to grow a thicker skin if they are going to venture into high level, state-wide politics.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen(or whatever other clichés apply).
Conduct the campaign in the political arena, not the courts. If your opponent is a lying toad, call him/her out on it in front of the entire public, rather than litigating the matter in the courts(which will not get to trial till years after the election is over).
Dear 10:54, I am sure you did not mean anything by your use of the word "toad," I am not accusing you of anything, I personally do not like the oversensitive PC culture we live in but I do like my fellow attorneys and always looking to help, so just wanted you to know that "toad" is an often used derogatory term for African Americans, a quick look in the Urban Dictionary verifies this, just an FYI
Not 1054 but appreciate the education. Had no idea.
(a) you can find any definition you want on Urban Dictionary;
(b) if you can't find the one you want, you can always add it yourself;
(c) I didn't see any definition of toad on UD that applied to African Americans. Admittedly, there are 9 pages of definitions. But its not in the top 7.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=toad
I am 10:54. Had no idea at all, so thanks much for the heads up.
I know this is not PC, but I kind of resent when others get to decide what I mean by my use of common terms with a variety of esoteric slang interpretions. Some words (N word for example) transcend that but toad does not, imho.
In a prison context, calling someone a toad is as bad as using the n word. It's a well-known extremely derogatory term for a black person.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dear 12:15. Accusing 10:54 of using "toad" as a derogatory term for African-Americans? Really? You need to better calibrate your research skills with your analytical skills. Not being a prisoner, most people I know that call someone a "toad" do so because they think of TOADS, not African-Americans. You know, toads — the homely amphibian with typically bumpy skin that led homo sapiens to derogatorily associate them with warts?
Serious @ 12:15. Give me a break or get off this blog. (PS- I am not even 10:54).
To all those upset, and snarky, that someone has pointed this out: Did you think calling someone a "toad" was nice somehow?
Toad the Wet Sprocket
Mr. Toad's Wild Ride…the last time I was down at the RJC
It's hard to keep up on which words and phrases are "racist." Here's a link to a website my Bishop showed me and I find informative. http://www.rsdb.org/ It's the Racial Slur Database. "Toad" is derogatory on the RSDB.
Who knew that when I let my wife know that we were out of TP, I was in fact inviting her to go out and get some "Typical Pakistanis" and bring them back to the house. Or that when Sarah Connor advises a guard that there are 206 bones in the human body, she must have been uttering a slur against Jews. Or that "boogie man" is a slur against whites, unless you shorten it to just "boogie" in which case it's a slur against blacks.
Exactly. We must screen our words before we speak.
Yes, ask your bishop. Ask him what a tampon is?
6:44, is that a slur against Natives? Red on the outside, white on the inside?
Dear 12:33, I was very polite and professional, this term has been verified on several websites incl rsdb.org, not sure why you are so offended, I just saw no reason to offend 47 million people when in all likelihood the writer did not even know how offensive that is, why are u so shaken as to demand I leave?
Again, I'm 10:54, and I clearly did not know, and it's my bad.
It's clear I did not know because when I discussed the approach that should be taken(which included the term in question) the discussion directly and specifically centered around a race where both candidates are white males.
I was simply trying to make a point of how useless these politically motivated lawsuits are, and instead candidates should fight back in the public arena by calling out the offending side as a lying (fill in the blank).N
next time I'll say something like "lying dog" rather than "lying toad", but I'll first check to see if "dog" is now associated as some sort of racially-motivated moniker. I don't think it is, but I agree that these days it's always best to check beforehand.
This is why words without context are meaningless. Words are only derogatory when their CONTEXT is derogatory. As you indicate, in discussing a race with 2 Caucasian candidates, for anyone to get offended at the word "toad" is silly.
I think you should be safe with "lying dog."
Actually, I find that offensive.
Boom.
/thread.
LD wins the interwebs
I predict the mandatory malpractice rule will be enacted with carve outs for in house counsel, government lawyers, pro bono lawyers and maybe even semi-retired lawyers. It is a painfully flawed rule, but these are the reasons it will pass: (1) It is presented under the guise good intentions (who can question a desire to protect the public?); and (2) the money and the power are behind it. The big fish in the pond see an opportunity to kill the little fish, all while pretending to have done it for a noble reason.
For anyone trying to watch the live stream, I couldn't get it to work in Chrome, but it works in Internet Explorer.
Surprise surprise the video doesn't load. Could it be Team Eglet at work so we can't watch?
It will not pass. ALPS cannot have regulatory power over attorneys, such as mandatory cutting the license. You have due process issues.
I say with all sincerity that I wish I had went to med school, the Nevada State Medical Board is not the worst enemy of physicians and patients
I tuned it just to hear Douglas say attorneys and insurance and with that we stand in recess. Are they running behind schedule?
little bit…they just got done with oral arguments on another case
They are working on a writ from 2005.
They just issued a Discipline Decision 4.5 years after it started so the Supremes are way behind schedule (despite them telling you that they have done such a great job catching up).
When I retire, and I preserve my best court performances for audio archival purposes, should I choose to preserve them with the sonic breath and layered dimensions of stereophonic recordings, or should I preserve my best court arguments with the warmth, intimacy and immediacy that monophonic recordings offer?
And when involved in the final mixing process, should I have my voice high in the mix, and the counter-arguments of opposing counsel, and judicial criticisms of my argument, buried in the mix to the point they are virtually indecipherable?
To:3:22. Keep it simple. For hearings you won, keep the judge's rulings even higher in the mix than your own voice. For hearings you lost(and I infer from your commentary that hearings you lost greatly outnumber the hearings that you won) bury the judge's voice in the mix.
This all means that for most hearings, we should be really only hearing your voice(if I am correct that your losing hearings greatly outnumber the ones you won).
Who is speaking for the state bar? He's making blanket statements of conclusion and not a single question from the Court.
I believe it is Mr. Leverty. I also think he is a very boring speaker and not very compelling.
Is that (bleeping) Gene Leverty again?????
The current President, Gene Leverty
Why are they letting him drone on like this?
Gene Leverty is no longer the President as of last week. Rick Pocker is the present President. However I presume they let Leverty (the former Insurance Commissioner) to speak about generating business for insurance companies.
Yes, Gene Leverty (2017-2018 Bar President) is presenting the State Bar's position. Mr. Leverty stated at the beginning of his presentation that the members of the Board of Governors (i.e., those who served between July 2017 and June 2018) unanimously approved the Petition to mandate malpractice insurance.
Lets vote those bums out again.
Yes, he said the board unanimously approved it, but he didn't mention that 3 of the members have been replaced.
Forget that most of the former BOG were voted out because of the half baked ideas, including malpractice insurance.
Hardesty surprisingly on our side, it seems, by noting that insurance companies may deny issuing a policy based upon frivolous factors, such as a non-meritorious bar complaint! Pleasantly surprised!
But Cherry completely against us.
But Cherry was concerned about Bob Eglet.
Looks like Pickering is on our side. Only 2 states mandate insurance. Leverty says 3.
Pickering: So only two states impose this requirement, correct?
Thank you!
Why should Nevada be a guinea pig?
Only having watched this hearing and the one on audits, Pickering strikes me as a reasonable justice willing to ask legit questions. Here she is now asking about what the rates will be in 20 years–thinking long term.
Let's see if she asks Mr. Eglet what he stands to gain from this being implemented. then I will be impressed.
Rates could go down when the insurance pool gets larger, but captive insurance markets don't always work like that. When a person is captively insured as a condition of licensure, insurance companies have an incentive to raise rates until they reach the point at which lawyers start getting economically forced out of the market.
There is no evidence insurance rates will actually go down, just conjecture on poor economic theory.
We now know WHY Cherry was concerned about Bob Eglet, after Eglet treated them all to lunch.
"Most lawyers I know have coverage of $1 million."
You need to know more lawyers. Jackass.
Translation: Most lawyers I care to know….
Pickering: If a lawyer can't get coverage because of a lack of providers or other factors, this rule puts them out of business, correct?
Gene the Fiend: Correct.
Eglet is list other industries that "state law requires" to have insurance. Exactly Bob, this is for the legislature to do, not the Court.
Eglet says he started this 3 years ago and then name drops 3 of the justices. He is the BOG.
What?? Someone dared put Eglet on a time limit?
Parraguirre on our side.
Huh? He wasn't there.
Cherry says he is worried about how this will affect Eglet's firm. Eglet says he pays hundreds of thousands a year for insurance. Umbrella policy with lloyds of London, Eglet isn't worried about how this will affect him.
so far, no one speaking against except Pickering.
A few people spoke against. Hopefully the Court really reads the comments in opposition and acknowledges that this was set on (relatively) short notice.
To argue that this should be decided by the Legislature is to tempt fate. That's the LAST thing we want.
Nope. Hardesty is against us.
Hardesty wants answers from insurance companies. Discussion about rewriting the proposed rule. Hardesty says in general to economics, we have seen an awful lot of lawyers disciplined for theft and in those, restitution was ordered, but is an idle promise. He doesn't seem to understand that insurance won't pay out for theft.
Furthemore Hardesty–while you were so busy screwing attorneys to the wall in cases that involved no theft–you should have thought about the effect on insurability and being able to return to practice.
Bingo. Intentional misconduct is always excluded. Justice Pickering gets it.
Pickering is the only one with recent memory of private practice, the business of law.
Eglet says it is a violation of separation of powers for legislature to require lawyers to buy insurance. Stick to PI bob.
Sounds like the Court is going to take it under advisement, issue an order with additional questions, redrafting, etc.
Sounds like the State Bar might be asked to start over.
Here's a question: What happens when the insurance market hardens and rates double and triple like in the late 80's and early 90's? Like any commodity, insurance rates are subject to supply and demand. If there is capital available in the market, then many carriers write insurance at low premiums. If there isn't available capital, there will be less insurance, insurers leave the market and rates will go up. The remaining insurance companies don't care if rates go up. It won't matter to Bob Eglet or any of the mega firms who could eventually self-insure at $250,000 per lawyer. But, to anyone else practicing on Virginia Street, Idaho Street or Bridger, it will matter. A blanket rule that has the potential of putting lawyers out of business is not good for lawyers or consumers.
And how much do you want to bet the most uninsurable among lawyers don't carry malpractice now as it is? In fact, there's probably a bunch of self-selection for low risk policyholders in malpractice insurance generally. Require everyone to jump into the pool without a must-carry requirement like under the Affordable Care Act, and everyone is going to suddenly find themselves paying much higher premiums to spread around a lot more risk. The State Bar needs to do a much more serious economic analysis, independent of the Bar and of the insurers, to fully grasp what could happen.
What a completely half-baked, under-researched clusterf**k. We want you to pass a rule that could literally disbar lawyers in this State merely on the whim of insurance companies who could render them uninsurable.
Does the Nevada Supreme Court want to usurp power from them to insurance companies to regulate lawyers? What a bricklayer's Fuck job, wreck it bob.
By the way, Hardesty trumpeting that he never had a claim against him….
Read Charleston v. Hardesty. Justice Hardesty, were you lying to your insurance carriers for all of those years or were you lying in this public hearing? https://www.leagle.com/decision/19922142839p2d130312133
I was waiting for this.
I heard him say that he never disclosed a claim to anyone because of course he never had a claim against him. And he regulates when he thinks attorneys are lying.
Would making a misrepresentation from the Bench be proper grounds for a Judicial Discipline Complaint?
The older he gets, the better he was!
Yes, it is disciplinary.
The Rules of Professional Conduct also apply to judges. Too bad Stan isn't around to do something. Some of the Revised Code of Judicial Conduct:
Rule 1.2. Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary. A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
Rule 1.3. Avoiding Abuse of the Prestige of Judicial Office. A judge shall not abuse the prestige of judicial office to advance the personal or economic interests of the judge or others, or allow others to do so.
Note: Draw your own conclusions with this one.
Rule 2.15. Responding to Judicial and Lawyer Misconduct.
(A) A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question regarding the judge’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a judge in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.
. . .
(C) A judge who receives information indicating a substantial likelihood that another judge has committed a violation of this Code shall take appropriate action. . . .
Bar counsel does not handle judicial discipline
No but there is a panel who does handle judicial discipline.
My hope is that the Supreme Court denies the ADKT and directs the State Bar to conduct more research. Leverty's term is over and maybe Rick Pocker finds more important things to spend the State Bar's efforts on. Goodbye and good riddance Mr. Leverty.
Presumably the new BOG has the authority to seek to withdraw the ADKT petition. I know, I'm dreaming. But still.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
There's like 19 members on the board. The past election changed two.
Cherry, do the right thing. Leave your career on a high note. People will better remember the recent than the career.
Those poor new BOGS.
You should settle it son, because I am in it for the long run.
I happened to catch some of the Mandatory Malpractice argument. Did no one speak or was permitted to speak in opposition to the proposal? Did only the proponents of the proposal speak? There were over 135 plus attorneyd in opposition including one newly elected board member who joined the Joint Opposition. There were individual attorneys who raised many issues with comments in opposition. Two Justices speaking up against it and asking questions (Justice Hardesty and Justice Pickering) could be significant. Remember that only one Justice spoke up against the Mandatory Malpractice Insurance. There were more attorneys opposing this proposal than any other requirement. I hope the Court will reject it.
Hardesty indicated that he is FOR mandatory malpractice insurance but indicated he was probably against this particular proposal.
And btw: the figuratively fellating comment above was quite humorous so I am sorry that it had to be removed.
Is there some rash of uncollectable negligence-based judgments against attorneys that I'm not aware of?