Congrats to the 49% of takers who passed the February bar exam. [NV Bar]
Chief Deputy Public Defender David Westbrook says his client, the murder suspect accused of eating victim’s body parts, is incompetent. [RJ]
No rush to build new resort attached to A’s ballpark, Bally’s says. [RJ]
Judge Mary Kay Holthus sentences unlicensed driver with 19 tickets who killed cyclist. [8NewsNow]
In push for stricter DUI penalties, DA Steve Wolfson wants to see change. [KTNV]
Margaret Rudin, represented by Adam Breeden and Corrine Murphy, sues state alleging wrongful conviction. [News3LV]
Not Vegas, but includes a quote from former bankruptcy judge Bruce Markell: how four judges kept romance allegations quiet for two years. [Bloomberg Law]
Hopefully something is done to up the punishment for drunk driving. We don’t take it seriously enough because far to many people, including those in power, really don’t think its a big deal. Sure if asked they will clutch their pearls and talk a big game, but in reality, many people drive drunk often and don’t really think it is a big deal.
Do most out of towners drive much (except to and from their hotel and the beginning/end of the trip)? With the demise of free parking, seems worth it to just walk/Uber/taxi around.
Back in the day it was somewhat common to have a martini or two with lunch, and to get inebriated at social gatherings. DUI was not such a big deal, you had to get really snokered to get ticketed.
Today, tolerance for such is lower, a good thing. But any thoughts about marijuana? A casual toke during a work break, or a smoke on the way to work or driving home after work “to relieve tension”, gummies while working or driving?
The real problem with MJ is not driving while intoxicated (although that is A problem).
It’s the levels in the blood that do not reasonably equate to impairment. If you have it in your blood, you are guilty. Of course, as we know, MJ stays in your system for weeks.
With the current rumor that Biden is planning on trying to reclassify MJ from Schedule I to Schedule II, we might actually see impairment studies published in 10-15 years and then a few more for State Legislatures to catch up and change the impairment laws.
Goes back to follies of presentism. When I was as first barred in early 70s it was 100% accepted to drink n drive. People now can’t believe that. Something u are doing today will be viewed as ghastly and illegal in 50 years.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the social acceptance of driving drunk has changed a lot, and the laws are way, way more punitive than they were 40 years ago, as is enforcement.
You’re not going to get a pass if an officer pulls you over and you’re visibly impaired, you’re not.
Can we keep striving to do better? Absolutely. But I think it’s very shortsighted to claim that it’s not being taken seriously.
In the 80’s and 90’s, everyone drank at lunch and then drove back to the office. Then you drank after work, sometimes in the office, and drove home. Let’s just say that I was extremely lucky back then. Today with Uber and Lyft, there is no excuse.
The punishment for DUI could be life in prison and it still wouldn’t stop. We have a cultural problem. Need to stop serving alcohol in bars, casinos, restaurants, etc. People can drink at home.
Guest
Anonymous
May 2, 2024 11:37 am
Bar pass rate. I know folks who failed and who passed. The Bar Examiners are suggesting a major change to the bar exam. No more bar exam as we know it – no more one test and your done. Instead a three part exam–a multiple choice test after the first year of law school–a mini bar exam. Then Performance Tests after law school. When working, you then submit written work to be graded. It sounds like a modified NextGen bar exam. This is supposed to occur in 2026, 2027 or 2028. It is part an an ADKT at the Nevada S. Ct. All this “reform” of the bar exam is coming from Washington state and Oregon. The MBE is supposedly going bye bye. But then again maybe not. Some states will have NextGen and offer traditional bar exam. Very unclear. Needs to be vetted. Surprised no discussion.
The bar exam has been made repeatedly less difficult. The bar exam has been reformed multiple times. Nevada minimizes the importance of the MBE. The MBE is now 175 questions with 25 experimental. The cut score has been lowered from 145 to the 130s. It is now very possible to pass the Nevada Bar with a poor score on the MBE. I passed with a 138.
“…but one is more correct”
Exactly, that is point. Its a test of your ability to discriminate and apply.
The written essays are just barf jobs and you only need to spot an issue and be approximately right/correct.
I also point out that the MBE has been made easier. The original exam format was more difficult.
With regard to the NextGen. It is a dumbing down of the profession. An articulated objective is: “testing less breadth and depth across subject areas”
The barrier to entry is ridiculous. We should be preventing the rare incompetents from proceeding into our fold, but that test does not assess who is going to be a benefit to the profession, the community, or specific clients.
I don’t care if we all had to do it. And it’s not so much that it’s hard, it’s the fact that failing it throws your entire life off the rails for so long.
There should at least be more opportunities to take it if we are only seeing 48% pass rates.
Why not just have the entire thing virtually from a test center? Schedule an appointment, go in, take the test, and get grades. Don’t tell me that an AI system can’t scan a document for keywords and phrases. What this antiquated system of twice per year?
Nevada Bar Counsel attorneys are allowed to waive into the Nevada bar. Can you believe it?! I just won a $100 bet at my law firm. How many exceptions are there to the bar exam? Take a guess. Nine or ten. N.S.Ct. Rule-49.1-
1) UNLV law profs, 2) pro bono attys, 3) legal services, 4) Deputy DAs, 5) PDs in populations under 100,00 (rurals), 6)Fed AUSA and Fed PD, 7) Nevada AG Attorneys, 8) In House corporate and gov’t, 9) Nevada Attorney General and
10) spouse of military transferee.
Category (6) and Category (8) as to government are subject to federal preemption concerns, i.e., states being unable to regulate purely federal practice areas.
Incorrect. Federal local rules can require admission to the state bar. They used to require it. But even when they did they did not enforce it. Federal practice can set their own rules. The federal district court admits you based upon your admission to a federal district elsewhere. So you waive in. Why is there an exception if it is not required?
I think perhaps we’re talking past each other a bit. We agree federal court local rules can require state bar admission in the state in which the federal court sits.
If the federal court *requires* state licensure, that’s its prerogative. But the federal courts don’t *have* to require it. States are powerless to force federal courts or agencies to *require* it. The reason categories (6) and (8) exist is because the Nevada Supreme Court cannot *require* attorneys in those areas to be licensed in Nevada, at least so long as those attorneys fit into those exceptions.
The exception exists because the Nevada Supreme Court cannot purport to regulate exclusively federal practice. That’s beyond its jurisdiction and prerogatives under the Supremacy Clause to the U.S. Constitution.
I always really respected that Nancy R. at the law school sat for the bar – she didn’t have to and she did it anyway when she moved out here to work at Boyd as a Professor.
The purpose of these proposed reforms is to be make the bar easier. Everyone will pass. They call the bar reforms “fairness”. The purpose is to admit those who can’t pass the bar. Pass them along.
Sounds like a lot of delicious diversity, equity and inclusion!
This allows law schools to increase their revenue without the embarrassing consequence of graduates failing the exam. Red letter day for administrators making $300,000 a year, working 20 hours a week. They are the real heroes in all of this.
Messing with the bar exam diminishes and demeans my license to practice law. It cheapens it. I worked so hard for my bar card. The bar exam is a licensing exam. It is a right of passage. How dare they do this!
@12:20
Law is a profession. Would you also advocate lowering the barrier for doctors, CPAs?
It sounds like you want to lower the bar to the level of a real estate agent.
Look at the dregs in this town that are real estate agents. They go from poles and bottle service to the MLS. Drawing from that pool can’t ben the objective of DEI, right?
One of the wealthiest real estate agents I ever met was a former drug dealer who changed professions before he got caught. Pretty much the same skill set.
Getting a law degree is like getting a college degree now. So when the Nevada Supreme Court is taking comments or input on the bar exam changes, we should weigh in on them “reforming” the bar exam. 1:35 pm is right. The bar exam is a licensing exam. It is the only means to test competency. Now they want to make it a show up and pass. Keep it the way it is . The way it has been for over fifty years.
Apparently there was a Task Force that submitted a report under ADKT 0594. They have been working on this for a few years. I looked and could not find anything. I learned about it from someone close to the subject. Don’t know the answer. Comments should be limited to what they are proposing. Folks on the blog are all over the map on this. I think the choices will be adopt Nevada’s new fangled bar exam, keep it the way it is or have a hybrid. Change is in the works.
Task force?
Did SBN represent your interest, or did SBN advocate for you, or even ask your opinion? I want a Bar the works for me and advocates for the profession.
I bet when the Task Force met no one was informed. They have a Boyd Law Professor Joan Howarth on the Task Force who is opposed to the bar exam in its present format. She is also an examiner. She is from Michigan. I don’t understand why and where they are going with this.
Law is a profession. One that I’m incredibly proud to be a part of. Graduating law school is a major barrier to entry for almost everyone.
Becoming a real estate agent takes 1/5th the time it takes to graduate law school, and there’s no way that it’s as intensive.
The exam is not at all well-tailored to test for competency. The profession is enough of a meritocracy that I do not see much if any risk of allowing more young practitioners into our fold.
Every firm I’ve worked at has struggled to find able and willing young associates (if I believed failing the bar exam was a reasonable indication of ability I would have a different opinion).
We need better screening on the front end with Admissions/LSAT. The problem is that would decrease revenue for the law schools, whose administrators have proven to be sleeping gatekeepers.
Revenue may be an issue. But consider that law schools now report the number of L1’s admitted and at the other end, the number graduating. This statistic goes into the school ranking formula. So it is in the interest of the school and its ranking to pass and graduate every student.
But Boyd has the #2 greatest, most stupendous writing program in the entire country (according to a fossil magazine that nobody reads anymore)! *eyeroll*
I’m one of those weird people who do really well on the multiple guess (MBE), and not so great on the essays. I will be sad to see the MBE go for people like me.
Guest
Anonymous
May 2, 2024 12:17 pm
Strict DUI penalties won’t solve the problem. And how is it really even a problem? What if we moved away from this arbitrary punishment system and moved towards a system wherein people were inconvenienced for driving while intoxicated but not punished in such a punitive and arbitrary manner through the legal system? Like if you get caught, you’re sent home. And we keep your car for like two weeks.
And if the drunk kills someone? You’ll keep their car for an extra week?
After the third DUI, we should permanently revoke the DL. Get caught driving (drunk or not) after that, each incident has escalating, mandatory jail time.
Hey I like St. George. Why he gotta b in St. George?
Guest
Anonymous
May 2, 2024 2:08 pm
Family court litigant is mad her ex moved on. She follows him from court and hits him and his new girlfriend with her car. Neighbor’s camera picks up the whole thing. Sister is a prosecutor. Pulls some strings, gets it all smoothed over. A certain family court judge who’s been in the news recently made it all go away in family court. Now sister is running for BoG. And we wonder why practicing law in this town is such a colossal joke.
Also, she wrote her bio in the 3rd person. That’s a nope.
Guest
Anonymous
May 2, 2024 5:39 pm
Let me echo, congratulations on passing the Nevada Bar.
For those who didn’t. You can do it.
Try to figure out what went wrong, where to you lost focus or in what area/subject in which you were uncomfortable or maybe even guessing. On the next exam, outline every essay question before starting to write. You do not have to impress the graders with scholarship, just hit the points you outlined.
Disagree with outlining the essays. Thumbnail sketch is enough. Don’t waste time. Write it all down. You will be running out of time and need to go to the next question. It is a time limited exam. It will come to you as you start writing.
The bar is a memorization test more than anything. Memorize the Barbri outlines regurgitate them in essay form and you will be fine. That is all it is. Your essay should read exactly the same as everyone elses.
To anyone who didn’t pass: if you’ve really struggled with the essay / MPT section of the bar, and if your post-bar practice plans have now been upended, and if you can afford to set aside the time, consider working unpaid for a few months for a judge part-time while you prep for the next bar sitting. You’ll never get better training in taking apart fact patterns and writing up analyses on short notice. As the old proverb goes, “I hear, I forget; I see, I know; I do, I understand.”
Hopefully something is done to up the punishment for drunk driving. We don’t take it seriously enough because far to many people, including those in power, really don’t think its a big deal. Sure if asked they will clutch their pearls and talk a big game, but in reality, many people drive drunk often and don’t really think it is a big deal.
Its the casino industry. I promise you. Heavy penalties might chill out of town visitors.
There are weak DUI laws everywhere. I always thought it was because legislators rarely pass laws that would negatively affect themselves.
Do most out of towners drive much (except to and from their hotel and the beginning/end of the trip)? With the demise of free parking, seems worth it to just walk/Uber/taxi around.
Back in the day it was somewhat common to have a martini or two with lunch, and to get inebriated at social gatherings. DUI was not such a big deal, you had to get really snokered to get ticketed.
Today, tolerance for such is lower, a good thing. But any thoughts about marijuana? A casual toke during a work break, or a smoke on the way to work or driving home after work “to relieve tension”, gummies while working or driving?
The real problem with MJ is not driving while intoxicated (although that is A problem).
It’s the levels in the blood that do not reasonably equate to impairment. If you have it in your blood, you are guilty. Of course, as we know, MJ stays in your system for weeks.
With the current rumor that Biden is planning on trying to reclassify MJ from Schedule I to Schedule II, we might actually see impairment studies published in 10-15 years and then a few more for State Legislatures to catch up and change the impairment laws.
Maybe.
Goes back to follies of presentism. When I was as first barred in early 70s it was 100% accepted to drink n drive. People now can’t believe that. Something u are doing today will be viewed as ghastly and illegal in 50 years.
For my own conscience I want to note it was never right just accepted.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the social acceptance of driving drunk has changed a lot, and the laws are way, way more punitive than they were 40 years ago, as is enforcement.
You’re not going to get a pass if an officer pulls you over and you’re visibly impaired, you’re not.
Can we keep striving to do better? Absolutely. But I think it’s very shortsighted to claim that it’s not being taken seriously.
In the 80’s and 90’s, everyone drank at lunch and then drove back to the office. Then you drank after work, sometimes in the office, and drove home. Let’s just say that I was extremely lucky back then. Today with Uber and Lyft, there is no excuse.
The punishment for DUI could be life in prison and it still wouldn’t stop. We have a cultural problem. Need to stop serving alcohol in bars, casinos, restaurants, etc. People can drink at home.
Bar pass rate. I know folks who failed and who passed. The Bar Examiners are suggesting a major change to the bar exam. No more bar exam as we know it – no more one test and your done. Instead a three part exam–a multiple choice test after the first year of law school–a mini bar exam. Then Performance Tests after law school. When working, you then submit written work to be graded. It sounds like a modified NextGen bar exam. This is supposed to occur in 2026, 2027 or 2028. It is part an an ADKT at the Nevada S. Ct. All this “reform” of the bar exam is coming from Washington state and Oregon. The MBE is supposedly going bye bye. But then again maybe not. Some states will have NextGen and offer traditional bar exam. Very unclear. Needs to be vetted. Surprised no discussion.
I am not sorry to see the demise of the MBE’s. There can be 2 correct answers to a question, but 1 is “more correct.”
The bar exam has been made repeatedly less difficult. The bar exam has been reformed multiple times. Nevada minimizes the importance of the MBE. The MBE is now 175 questions with 25 experimental. The cut score has been lowered from 145 to the 130s. It is now very possible to pass the Nevada Bar with a poor score on the MBE. I passed with a 138.
“…but one is more correct”
Exactly, that is point. Its a test of your ability to discriminate and apply.
The written essays are just barf jobs and you only need to spot an issue and be approximately right/correct.
I also point out that the MBE has been made easier. The original exam format was more difficult.
With regard to the NextGen. It is a dumbing down of the profession. An articulated objective is: “testing less breadth and depth across subject areas”
ADKT 0549. Bar Admissions. I think this is also the docket for the rural PDs and DAs to get licenses on motion or application.
Law graduates are not going to like the “NextGen” exam or a variation. This does away with the bar exam as we know.
Here is a post on the NextGen Bar Exam from Gutkowski at Boyd.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4549981
NextGen Licensure & Accreditation
22 U.N.H. L. Rev. 2 (Forthcoming 2024)
67 Pages Posted: 24 Aug 2023 Last revised: 4 Mar 2024
Nachman N. Gutowski
The barrier to entry is ridiculous. We should be preventing the rare incompetents from proceeding into our fold, but that test does not assess who is going to be a benefit to the profession, the community, or specific clients.
I don’t care if we all had to do it. And it’s not so much that it’s hard, it’s the fact that failing it throws your entire life off the rails for so long.
There should at least be more opportunities to take it if we are only seeing 48% pass rates.
Why not just have the entire thing virtually from a test center? Schedule an appointment, go in, take the test, and get grades. Don’t tell me that an AI system can’t scan a document for keywords and phrases. What this antiquated system of twice per year?
Can the Obc please take an ethics exam and have at least 6 months real world experience please.
Nevada Bar Counsel attorneys are allowed to waive into the Nevada bar. Can you believe it?! I just won a $100 bet at my law firm. How many exceptions are there to the bar exam? Take a guess. Nine or ten. N.S.Ct. Rule-49.1-
1) UNLV law profs, 2) pro bono attys, 3) legal services, 4) Deputy DAs, 5) PDs in populations under 100,00 (rurals), 6)Fed AUSA and Fed PD, 7) Nevada AG Attorneys, 8) In House corporate and gov’t, 9) Nevada Attorney General and
10) spouse of military transferee.
Category (6) and Category (8) as to government are subject to federal preemption concerns, i.e., states being unable to regulate purely federal practice areas.
Incorrect. Federal local rules can require admission to the state bar. They used to require it. But even when they did they did not enforce it. Federal practice can set their own rules. The federal district court admits you based upon your admission to a federal district elsewhere. So you waive in. Why is there an exception if it is not required?
I think perhaps we’re talking past each other a bit. We agree federal court local rules can require state bar admission in the state in which the federal court sits.
If the federal court *requires* state licensure, that’s its prerogative. But the federal courts don’t *have* to require it. States are powerless to force federal courts or agencies to *require* it. The reason categories (6) and (8) exist is because the Nevada Supreme Court cannot *require* attorneys in those areas to be licensed in Nevada, at least so long as those attorneys fit into those exceptions.
The exception exists because the Nevada Supreme Court cannot purport to regulate exclusively federal practice. That’s beyond its jurisdiction and prerogatives under the Supremacy Clause to the U.S. Constitution.
I always really respected that Nancy R. at the law school sat for the bar – she didn’t have to and she did it anyway when she moved out here to work at Boyd as a Professor.
The purpose of these proposed reforms is to be make the bar easier. Everyone will pass. They call the bar reforms “fairness”. The purpose is to admit those who can’t pass the bar. Pass them along.
Sounds like a lot of delicious diversity, equity and inclusion!
This allows law schools to increase their revenue without the embarrassing consequence of graduates failing the exam. Red letter day for administrators making $300,000 a year, working 20 hours a week. They are the real heroes in all of this.
With DEI, we all DIE together!
Open up the floodgates and let in all the store front law grads from Cali.
Messing with the bar exam diminishes and demeans my license to practice law. It cheapens it. I worked so hard for my bar card. The bar exam is a licensing exam. It is a right of passage. How dare they do this!
7:05: Rite of passage*
@12:20
Law is a profession. Would you also advocate lowering the barrier for doctors, CPAs?
It sounds like you want to lower the bar to the level of a real estate agent.
Look at the dregs in this town that are real estate agents. They go from poles and bottle service to the MLS. Drawing from that pool can’t ben the objective of DEI, right?
Yeah strippers should be categorically excluded from practicing law
/s
One of the wealthiest real estate agents I ever met was a former drug dealer who changed professions before he got caught. Pretty much the same skill set.
Getting a law degree is like getting a college degree now. So when the Nevada Supreme Court is taking comments or input on the bar exam changes, we should weigh in on them “reforming” the bar exam. 1:35 pm is right. The bar exam is a licensing exam. It is the only means to test competency. Now they want to make it a show up and pass. Keep it the way it is . The way it has been for over fifty years.
Where can we submit comments to the NSC on reforming the bar exam?
Apparently there was a Task Force that submitted a report under ADKT 0594. They have been working on this for a few years. I looked and could not find anything. I learned about it from someone close to the subject. Don’t know the answer. Comments should be limited to what they are proposing. Folks on the blog are all over the map on this. I think the choices will be adopt Nevada’s new fangled bar exam, keep it the way it is or have a hybrid. Change is in the works.
Task force?
Did SBN represent your interest, or did SBN advocate for you, or even ask your opinion? I want a Bar the works for me and advocates for the profession.
I bet when the Task Force met no one was informed. They have a Boyd Law Professor Joan Howarth on the Task Force who is opposed to the bar exam in its present format. She is also an examiner. She is from Michigan. I don’t understand why and where they are going with this.
Sounds like a runaway train.
Law is a profession. One that I’m incredibly proud to be a part of. Graduating law school is a major barrier to entry for almost everyone.
Becoming a real estate agent takes 1/5th the time it takes to graduate law school, and there’s no way that it’s as intensive.
The exam is not at all well-tailored to test for competency. The profession is enough of a meritocracy that I do not see much if any risk of allowing more young practitioners into our fold.
Every firm I’ve worked at has struggled to find able and willing young associates (if I believed failing the bar exam was a reasonable indication of ability I would have a different opinion).
Law partner here. Recent grads are so lacking in basic skills. Boyd included. The problem is with legal education not the bar exam.
Fair, but I still think studying for the bar exam (multiple times?!) is only a hurdle to development.
We need better screening on the front end with Admissions/LSAT. The problem is that would decrease revenue for the law schools, whose administrators have proven to be sleeping gatekeepers.
Revenue may be an issue. But consider that law schools now report the number of L1’s admitted and at the other end, the number graduating. This statistic goes into the school ranking formula. So it is in the interest of the school and its ranking to pass and graduate every student.
But Boyd has the #2 greatest, most stupendous writing program in the entire country (according to a fossil magazine that nobody reads anymore)! *eyeroll*
I’m one of those weird people who do really well on the multiple guess (MBE), and not so great on the essays. I will be sad to see the MBE go for people like me.
Strict DUI penalties won’t solve the problem. And how is it really even a problem? What if we moved away from this arbitrary punishment system and moved towards a system wherein people were inconvenienced for driving while intoxicated but not punished in such a punitive and arbitrary manner through the legal system? Like if you get caught, you’re sent home. And we keep your car for like two weeks.
And if the drunk kills someone? You’ll keep their car for an extra week?
After the third DUI, we should permanently revoke the DL. Get caught driving (drunk or not) after that, each incident has escalating, mandatory jail time.
Found the drunk.
The legal profession could be so much more. As a group, we are our own worst enemies.
Where’s the bulldoze family court guy – my new favorite poster?
He’s up in St. George, preparing a Complaint as we speak.
Hey I like St. George. Why he gotta b in St. George?
Family court litigant is mad her ex moved on. She follows him from court and hits him and his new girlfriend with her car. Neighbor’s camera picks up the whole thing. Sister is a prosecutor. Pulls some strings, gets it all smoothed over. A certain family court judge who’s been in the news recently made it all go away in family court. Now sister is running for BoG. And we wonder why practicing law in this town is such a colossal joke.
Do tell. Have not turned in my ballot yet. Please reveal. There is only one female running for the open seat.
Well, well, do tell…..I voted for John Aldridge.
Voting closes May 8th for the BOG. There is still time to vote. I was worried I did not turn in my ballot. I agree with 3:07 pm.
Also, she wrote her bio in the 3rd person. That’s a nope.
Let me echo, congratulations on passing the Nevada Bar.
For those who didn’t. You can do it.
Try to figure out what went wrong, where to you lost focus or in what area/subject in which you were uncomfortable or maybe even guessing. On the next exam, outline every essay question before starting to write. You do not have to impress the graders with scholarship, just hit the points you outlined.
Disagree with outlining the essays. Thumbnail sketch is enough. Don’t waste time. Write it all down. You will be running out of time and need to go to the next question. It is a time limited exam. It will come to you as you start writing.
The bar is a memorization test more than anything. Memorize the Barbri outlines regurgitate them in essay form and you will be fine. That is all it is. Your essay should read exactly the same as everyone elses.
To anyone who didn’t pass: if you’ve really struggled with the essay / MPT section of the bar, and if your post-bar practice plans have now been upended, and if you can afford to set aside the time, consider working unpaid for a few months for a judge part-time while you prep for the next bar sitting. You’ll never get better training in taking apart fact patterns and writing up analyses on short notice. As the old proverb goes, “I hear, I forget; I see, I know; I do, I understand.”
Best response this year “LOL, no.”
https://reclaimthenet.org/lapd-foundation-tries-to-use-trademark-claim-to-shutdown-critical-merch