The Nevada Judiciary has issued its 2020 Annual Report. There are lots of statistics and numbers for those of you who like that stuff, including the fact that the Eighth Judicial District makes up 77% of the state’s non-traffic caseload.
Judge Jennifer Dorsey dismissed an ex-officer’s racism suit against Metro. [RJ]
Clark County Commissioners are reconsidering whether to certify the election results in District C. [Nevada Current]
Nevada Republicans dropped a federal lawsuit. [8NewsNow]
Farhan Naqvi sold his house to another lawyer for $7.4 million. [RJ]
Naqvi has done very well for himself for the past 15 years as an attorney. It appears that the number of attorneys who practice personal injury law has grown during the last few years. Has that field of practice become more lucrative? I was under the impression that insurance companies were tightening their belts and forcing the majority of claims into litigation.
So does running a volume based practice benefit the client? I would not think so. Also, I cannot imagine how that would be enjoyable as an attorney to practice law in a firm that is signing up everyone who comes through the door with the intent to get get a case settled as soon as possible, regardless of the net amount going to the client.
Realistically, the PI mills have very little attorney involvement in the volume cases. Take a look at Naqvi's website, as an example. There are 64 people listed as his "team." 7 are attorneys (including Naqvi himself). I doubt that any of the attorneys spend more than a few minutes on each of the thousands of cases — unless the case happens to be a BIG ONE.
Pay for billboards. Answer phone. Sign up clients. Order police report and medical records, then have someone write demand letter. Then settle. Then buy $7 million house.
You are right, I found a nice, low key personal injury attorney for her. Non-billboard, non-tv advertising attorney.
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2020 6:22 pm
Those without vision…won't.
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2020 6:31 pm
What are people doing for staff gifts this year? Bonuses? XMAS parties? Are those things cancelled this year too? My usual ideas feel tone deaf against the backdrop of this 2020 dumpster fire.
I'm sending gift cards with hand written cards. I'm trying to get them out this week so that they can use them for the holiday if they want to. Seems like that's what the staff will get the most use out of and is also convenient for me to do in bulk.
We are having a virtual holiday party. They will send us a GrubHub/Postmates gift card for food while on a zoom.
We will send gifts to top clients with handwritten notes.
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2020 6:43 pm
I'm in a difficult situation and need some advice ASAP.
Without getting into specifics my close colleague and his partner are considering extending an employment offer to one of the recently defeated judges.
My colleague really values my advice(why, I don't know, as some of my advice has not been that wonderful) and my advice was to tread lightly and be real carful when hiring an ex-judge.
The posts from yesterday at 12:27 and 1:02 really fleshed out this issue and made it sound that hiring ex-judges is disastrous.
The bottom line was that ex judges tend not to work much, but believe they are only there as of counsel window dressing, which might be fine if they were real rain makers, but that most of the time they really don't attract enough business(based on their status as an ex-judge) to justify the generous salaries they are now receiving.
Do you guys tend to agree with that or does that constitute a rather harsh over-generalization?
Yeah, Rob Bare is solid. That is probably the biggest loss in this election, along with Trevor Atkin. As for others, it will be amusing to watch them transition to private practice. Heads up: billable hours are a bitch.
Generalizations about ex-judges' work ethic is BS. If you have someone in mind, say his/her name.
Lincoln/Gus got a great ex, Mark Bailus. How lucky were they? Smart, hard working, NO robeitis. So goes the argument that short time ex-judges are bad.
If the ex-Judge has star power and can help originate big bucks, who gives a rats ass if he's lazy? In fact, just spend the day working at breakfast, golf course, lunch, golf course, and then dinner. As long as the money comes in, all is well.
Guest
Anonymous
December 1, 2020 8:25 pm
11:22 and 12:09. Yes, Bare is the biggest loss and would make a good addition to a firm.
Bare would be good at what? He was bar counsel and a Judge. What type of law is he going to practice? Atkin was a very good attorney and just came from private practice.
Atkin and Bare should ask 'why is it that Eglet and his law partners (except maybe Adams) always break up under less-than-optimal circumstances?' Think about it: Prince, Pyatt, Sylvestri, Christiansen, Harris, Cottle, Wall, Brad Mainor. Did any of those partnerships end well?
Has anyone found out why E & A turned on Prince? He was their star and workhorse for about three years and then poof!
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2020 12:58 am
From Nancy Rapaport's twitter stream, I found an overbilling lawsuit against K&L Gates. The allegations include a claim that they hosted an annual seminar on increasing billing, and overbilled by block billing (30% more hours!), hoarding (partner doing associate level work, associate doing paralegal legal work, but billing the normal rate, etc.), and multibilling (5 attorneys attending the same meeting).
As someone who spent some time in insurance defense…. gulp!
4:58–I can't speak as to whether they have had instances of over-billing, except to say that all firms that charge hourly get accused of that from time-to-time. Sometimes the client complaints are in the form of an informal gripe or billing inquiry, and sometimes they are in the nature of a formal complaint.
What I will say is that I sincerely doubt that that firm, or any other firm for that matter, would have the ballsy brazenous to conduct an actual seminar on over-billing.
Increased billing? Sure, that's possible. More creative billing and more extensive billing, such as billing in areas hitherto not billed in? Sure, That's possible. But presenting the topic as encouraging "over-billing"?(which by its very definition is highly dishonest and a clear ethical violation as well). A resounding "No" to that.
There is no way some partner or senior associate stood up and instructed how to double bill, or over bill, or otherwise bill for work not performed. No firm would be quite THAT blatant.
Again, if firms encourage practices which actually lead to over-billing, it will always be under the veneer of proper billing, with enough built in plausible deniability.
6:41, true, but 4:58 never said specifically that there was a seminar topic with a header of how to over-bill.
Instead, the emphasis was on "increased billing". If there was also block billing, and if it did in fact inflate the billing by 30% more hours, the topic was obviously not presented as encouraging people to bill for hours of work never performed.
So, 4:58 only stated that there was a lawsuit that, among other things, alleged block billing, but did not specifically say that the seminar included a topic on how to "over-bill."
Now, that said, whenever firms encourage greatly increased billings, they do run the risk of being accused of over-billing in particular instances.
The problem with all this is that it can be extremely difficult to nail a firm for improper billing or over-billing if they actually itemize all the work. If they actually itemize the work, and have reasonable proof that such work was performed, it is not too often that a judge, or disciplinary board, will indicate that this or that project was not necessary or should have only taken 4 hours, rather than the 8 hours billed.
No block billing? That's insane. Then we are all ID attorneys, dropping rabbit turd billing increments of .2 for this, .3 for that, 1.1 for something else. I drop big fat detailed billing blocks, one per day.
As far as all these billing issues, it's clear that the above posters understand these issues a lot more fully than I do, but there is one thing I believe I can validly weigh in on.
The one statement by 6:50 is very true, always has been, and always will be. As long as someone itemizes their work(and, if need be, can prove the work, such as "here's the motion I filed and billed for") it is unusual for some judge or disciplinary agency to take issue with it in terms of saying this project should not have taken quite as long as you billed it for.
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2020 1:00 am
E&A brag about their retreats, Fun Fridays, marble floors, etc. However, the work environment is tense at best.
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2020 1:07 am
One could also ask why E&A refuses to train its associates to be top flight litigators. The firm prefers to promote/encourage compliant pencil pushers rather than genuine trial attorneys.
Guest
Anonymous
December 2, 2020 1:11 am
Does anyone know what Eglet pays at least? I'll admit I'm curious about what happens there.
Naqvi has done very well for himself for the past 15 years as an attorney. It appears that the number of attorneys who practice personal injury law has grown during the last few years. Has that field of practice become more lucrative? I was under the impression that insurance companies were tightening their belts and forcing the majority of claims into litigation.
Volume is usually the marketing strategy with so many PI firms. Higher volume with lower settlements. If it's got a billboard, it's likely a PI Mill.
So does running a volume based practice benefit the client? I would not think so. Also, I cannot imagine how that would be enjoyable as an attorney to practice law in a firm that is signing up everyone who comes through the door with the intent to get get a case settled as soon as possible, regardless of the net amount going to the client.
Realistically, the PI mills have very little attorney involvement in the volume cases. Take a look at Naqvi's website, as an example. There are 64 people listed as his "team." 7 are attorneys (including Naqvi himself). I doubt that any of the attorneys spend more than a few minutes on each of the thousands of cases — unless the case happens to be a BIG ONE.
Pay for billboards. Answer phone. Sign up clients. Order police report and medical records, then have someone write demand letter. Then settle. Then buy $7 million house.
My sister hired Farhan Naqvhi and his paralegal fucked up her case. We are filing a bar complaint.
4:08-That's on you. Why did you let her go there?!
You are right, I found a nice, low key personal injury attorney for her. Non-billboard, non-tv advertising attorney.
Those without vision…won't.
What are people doing for staff gifts this year? Bonuses? XMAS parties? Are those things cancelled this year too? My usual ideas feel tone deaf against the backdrop of this 2020 dumpster fire.
I'm sending gift cards with hand written cards. I'm trying to get them out this week so that they can use them for the holiday if they want to. Seems like that's what the staff will get the most use out of and is also convenient for me to do in bulk.
We are having a virtual holiday party. They will send us a GrubHub/Postmates gift card for food while on a zoom.
We will send gifts to top clients with handwritten notes.
I'm in a difficult situation and need some advice ASAP.
Without getting into specifics my close colleague and his partner are considering extending an employment offer to one of the recently defeated judges.
My colleague really values my advice(why, I don't know, as some of my advice has not been that wonderful) and my advice was to tread lightly and be real carful when hiring an ex-judge.
The posts from yesterday at 12:27 and 1:02 really fleshed out this issue and made it sound that hiring ex-judges is disastrous.
The bottom line was that ex judges tend not to work much, but believe they are only there as of counsel window dressing, which might be fine if they were real rain makers, but that most of the time they really don't attract enough business(based on their status as an ex-judge) to justify the generous salaries they are now receiving.
Do you guys tend to agree with that or does that constitute a rather harsh over-generalization?
If it is Rob Bare, hire him. If it is another failed judge, do not.
Yeah, Rob Bare is solid. That is probably the biggest loss in this election, along with Trevor Atkin. As for others, it will be amusing to watch them transition to private practice. Heads up: billable hours are a bitch.
Generalizations about ex-judges' work ethic is BS. If you have someone in mind, say his/her name.
Lincoln/Gus got a great ex, Mark Bailus. How lucky were they? Smart, hard working, NO robeitis. So goes the argument that short time ex-judges are bad.
If the ex-Judge has star power and can help originate big bucks, who gives a rats ass if he's lazy? In fact, just spend the day working at breakfast, golf course, lunch, golf course, and then dinner. As long as the money comes in, all is well.
11:22 and 12:09. Yes, Bare is the biggest loss and would make a good addition to a firm.
And perhaps Trevor Atkin might as well.
Bare would be good at what? He was bar counsel and a Judge. What type of law is he going to practice? Atkin was a very good attorney and just came from private practice.
Based on yesterday's comments, maybe Steve Wolfson will want to hire him? Bare hired Steve's daughter, now the DA can return the favor.
Bare has never hired Steve's daughter. Adair did.
Wolfson's pot-loving comedienne daughter? If so, that must have livened the chambers up at least a little bit. Maybe Bare should have hired her.
Atkin and Bare should ask 'why is it that Eglet and his law partners (except maybe Adams) always break up under less-than-optimal circumstances?' Think about it: Prince, Pyatt, Sylvestri, Christiansen, Harris, Cottle, Wall, Brad Mainor. Did any of those partnerships end well?
No they did not.
In some cases there was blood on the walls.
The Eglet/Harris litigation was very public and very ugly. (although, Eglet and Harris seem to have buried the hatchet, publicly at least)
Has anyone found out why E & A turned on Prince? He was their star and workhorse for about three years and then poof!
From Nancy Rapaport's twitter stream, I found an overbilling lawsuit against K&L Gates. The allegations include a claim that they hosted an annual seminar on increasing billing, and overbilled by block billing (30% more hours!), hoarding (partner doing associate level work, associate doing paralegal legal work, but billing the normal rate, etc.), and multibilling (5 attorneys attending the same meeting).
As someone who spent some time in insurance defense…. gulp!
Who is K and L?
Kolesar & Leatham maybe? Not sure why the OP comment says "K&L Gates" though.
4:58–I can't speak as to whether they have had instances of over-billing, except to say that all firms that charge hourly get accused of that from time-to-time. Sometimes the client complaints are in the form of an informal gripe or billing inquiry, and sometimes they are in the nature of a formal complaint.
What I will say is that I sincerely doubt that that firm, or any other firm for that matter, would have the ballsy brazenous to conduct an actual seminar on over-billing.
Increased billing? Sure, that's possible. More creative billing and more extensive billing, such as billing in areas hitherto not billed in? Sure, That's possible. But presenting the topic as encouraging "over-billing"?(which by its very definition is highly dishonest and a clear ethical violation as well). A resounding "No" to that.
There is no way some partner or senior associate stood up and instructed how to double bill, or over bill, or otherwise bill for work not performed. No firm would be quite THAT blatant.
Again, if firms encourage practices which actually lead to over-billing, it will always be under the veneer of proper billing, with enough built in plausible deniability.
6:41, true, but 4:58 never said specifically that there was a seminar topic with a header of how to over-bill.
Instead, the emphasis was on "increased billing". If there was also block billing, and if it did in fact inflate the billing by 30% more hours, the topic was obviously not presented as encouraging people to bill for hours of work never performed.
So, 4:58 only stated that there was a lawsuit that, among other things, alleged block billing, but did not specifically say that the seminar included a topic on how to "over-bill."
Now, that said, whenever firms encourage greatly increased billings, they do run the risk of being accused of over-billing in particular instances.
The problem with all this is that it can be extremely difficult to nail a firm for improper billing or over-billing if they actually itemize all the work. If they actually itemize the work, and have reasonable proof that such work was performed, it is not too often that a judge, or disciplinary board, will indicate that this or that project was not necessary or should have only taken 4 hours, rather than the 8 hours billed.
K&L Gates is a biglaw firm. No Nevada office.
No block billing? That's insane. Then we are all ID attorneys, dropping rabbit turd billing increments of .2 for this, .3 for that, 1.1 for something else. I drop big fat detailed billing blocks, one per day.
Accountants account. Lawyers lawyer. Trolls troll.
As far as all these billing issues, it's clear that the above posters understand these issues a lot more fully than I do, but there is one thing I believe I can validly weigh in on.
The one statement by 6:50 is very true, always has been, and always will be. As long as someone itemizes their work(and, if need be, can prove the work, such as "here's the motion I filed and billed for") it is unusual for some judge or disciplinary agency to take issue with it in terms of saying this project should not have taken quite as long as you billed it for.
E&A brag about their retreats, Fun Fridays, marble floors, etc. However, the work environment is tense at best.
One could also ask why E&A refuses to train its associates to be top flight litigators. The firm prefers to promote/encourage compliant pencil pushers rather than genuine trial attorneys.
Does anyone know what Eglet pays at least? I'll admit I'm curious about what happens there.
I don't know, ask Elissa Cadish.
If Eglet settles a huge case do the attorneys in office all get bonuses?
I thought they stopped that a long time ago. Big bonuses just enable them to go out and start their own practices. Good question.
I was not aware Cadish ever worked with Eglet? Did she?
She takes big bucks from Eglet for campaign contributions.