- Quickdraw McLaw
- 44 Comments
- 87 Views
- The Supreme Court of Nevada issued ADKT 0561 ordering that the Las Vegas courthouse will be named after Justice Hardesty upon his retirement from the Court.
- Governor Sisolak will hold a press conference today at 5 p.m. to update everyone on Nevada’s response to COVID-19. Will he mandate masks for everyone everywhere? Will he lift the eviction moratorium? Any other surprises in store?
- The Annual Meeting is taking place via Zoom this morning. Those of you who can attend the meeting, please feel free to update the rest of us on what happens in the comments
Well, while we're waiting for it to start they are playing some music meant to evoke New Orleans. Off to a great start!
Paul Matteoni is giving opening remarks. This is a new situation and is giving us a chance to try out some new technologies and techniques. 9100 active attorneys, 2500 inactive. 288 new licensees this years which is trending up. 191 multijurisdictional firms. 735 pro hac vice applications. Average age is 50, 65% of attorneys are male. A third of our licensed attorneys live out of state. 1760 calls to the ethics hotline. 1700 grievances in 2019 filed with bar counsel. Attorneys reported 150,000 hours of pro bono service. 2911 attorneys belong to 24 state bar sections. 400 lawyer advertisements filed for review. The advertising rules and committee are working. The Lawyer Referral Service matched 10,000 clients with attorneys. Lots of member benefits on the state bar website including insurance. Last year the bar offered 111 hours of CLE credit (he notes this is prior to Covid-19 and the efforts that have been stepped up). Did you know the current state bar registration system offers online renewal and virtual bar cards accessible from smart phones? (Login and go to my account and you can download a photo to your phone.) Formed a committee on limited admissions (including residency and practice of mpre).
Doing the financial review now if you want to log on.
Marc Mersol, director of finance. Giving high-altitude look at 2019 financial report that was released in the annual report. Audit for 2019 starts shortly, but typically not much different than what was in the report. Licensing fees make up 49% of the revenue. Other funds (which included pro hac apps) make up 14% of revenue. Admissions make up 10% (but unlike the other two, this has significant costs as well for putting on the exam). 31% of expenses go to attorney discipline. 22% of expenses are administration. Admissions are 12%. Revenue has had hardly any growth over the last 5 years. Total increase over 5 years is $430,000. Less than 1% growth in revenue per year. He says expenses are trending down $530,000 since their peak in 2016. A lot of it is due to discipline and the backlog they had. Reduced number of FTE workers from 49 to 43 which helps. 2020 budget highlights: licensing fees have not been increased since 2005. Overall budgeted revenues is $7.4 million with expenses at $7.2 million. Over 20 years of unmodified audit opinions. They change auditors every 5 years or less.
Dan Hooge has entered the chat.
So what if it is discovered that Mr. Hardesty used an immodest word to refer to descendants of enslaved africans 20 years ago?
Will that result in the removal of his name from the courthouse?
Don't be idiotic.
Hardesty is the idiot.
Dan Hooge, Bar counsel over discipline. Three part mission: investigate, prosecute, and educate. They have worked with disciplinary board to decide how to score and sanction discipline. Bar's goal is to investigate grievances within 6 months and prosecute within 8 months. From grievance to resolution in about a year. We are one of the more efficient disciplinary agencies in the United States. 639 grievances filed this year (last few years have been around 1600–probably on track for 12-1300 this year.) OBC dismisses 60-70% during intake where the rules are implicated. Another 60-70% dismissed during investigation. The goal is to prosecute 80% of cases within 8 months. Difficulties prosecuting hearings right now due to covid-19. Started implementing zoom hearings for all of their hearings. That is hard with cases with dozens of witnesses. Someone asked if ethics hotline leads to disciplinary investigations. You don't get immunity if you call the ethics hotline. 99 times out of 100 their is no discipline if you call the ethics hotline. There is a misconception that it is a reporting hotline. Our best advice is if you have an issue, call in before you act. We'll help you through it. Our focus on discipline is on the major offenses, for minor misconduct we are focusing on diversionary programs like training and mentoring.
Terry Coffing talking about discipline taskforce. Of the 60-70% dismissed for lack of formal discipline, it would be helpful to have diversion or education to defer future misconduct. Coffing says statistics don't bare out that OBC is more heavy handed on small firms over big firms. (Both Hooge and Coffing talk about consistency and efficiency.) Maybe an administrative law judge to handle disciplinary claims to give consistency and efficiency to how discipline is applied. Maybe even just for evidentiary issues. We're looking at other jurisdictions and how they have done that. Nevada is one of only 8 states that does not have a mechanism for going from being disbarred to readmitted. Justice Pickering thinks changes procedures to disbarrment and giving path to readmission might help because it would give less harsh options. Question about whether CLE as diversion will help–the CLEs he envisions would count toward the attorney's required CLEs. He is not suggesting adding more CLEs, just mandating certain CLE to divert from a disciplinary process.
This elite squad of assholes is known as the OBC, I mean Nevada Supreme Court, I mean BOGS. How are they dressed?
Kristine Kuzemka- director of lawyer assistance program. Currently focused on improving lawyer well-being. 1 in 4 attorneys is experiencing some sort of impairment. In 2019, they did two well-being summits: anxiety/depression, substance abuse; trauma, aging/transitioning out of practice, and incivility. Deadlines and inconsistency from judges, opposing counsel is a big issue. They focused CLEs on recognition, resources, and recovery. We've seen less stigmatization on substance abuse, but there is a lot of fear of stigma with mental health issue whether temporary depression or biological diagnosis of bipolar. Been having support meetings throughout pandemic. State bar had done an amazing job providing resources to attorneys and judges who are experiencing difficulties. 418 people attended the CLE with Jordan Savage.
Ann Morgan- board of directors. Talking about the bar examine. With Covid, they had to consider what to do. Different states took different approaches, our state decided to give it with modifications. Remote administration – use of online proctors. eliminate use of MBE, and made it open book. MBE cannot ensure the integrity of their test online, so that is why it is being eliminated. The testing program is ILG Exam 360. They got a psychometrician. Proctors will watch no more than 15 people. All sessions are going to be recorded in HD so they can review them later if their are concerns. 8 essays and a performance test. Their will be 2 independent graders looking at each exam. We feel this will allow people to get their license while still protecting the public. Asked if she plans to eliminate the MBE in the future. Bar examiners will reassess before February bar and discuss with Supreme Court who will make that decision.
Richard Dreitzer talking about volunteer opportunities. More than 650 volunteers donated 33,000 hours to the bar last year. There are several vacancies to fill if you want to volunteer. Good to be involved so the bar reflects diverse opinions. Disciplinary boards are a great way to get involved. Depending on type of hearing you sit as a "juror." You can find volunteer opportunities on the bar website.
Nice little earthquake just now. Anyone else feel it?
God is pissed.
Yeah.
It was a 5.8 magnitude quake near Lone Pine, CA. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/eventpage/ci39493944/executive
The State Bar town hall meeting was like watching paint dry. They keep giving each other high fives and slaps on the back. The only thing that caught my attention was the limited license discussion. This should be prohibited but sounds like they are going to keep it going.
nearly 2 hours of drivel. A couple of good questions, but it didn't really lend itself to questions or discussions. First time I've heard Dan Hooge speak. Anyone else reckon he may be a Trump supporter? Coffing was talking some big talk about the discipline taskforce. Let's see it put into action. The bar exam is a joke.
Eric Dobberstein–incoming president of the bar. Appearing in front of a zoom background of the Hibernia bank building in New Orleans. Practice of law changed drastically in 2020. We have all had to adjust. Some good pandemic resources on the state bar website. Attorney well-being is our number 1 goal. Attorney discipline- you heard from Dan. We are open to modifying and finding the best way to protect the public, while at same improve the profession. We want to educate everyone on how to run a better practice. Going to have practice management director. He wants to make the bar easier for everyone. He says feel free to reach out to him if you have any questions or comments. Welcome to two new board members. Thanks to Paul Matteoni for his leadership. Questions. Any plans to make annual meeting available like this? Absolutely. We have board of governor meetings approximately 5 times a year. Feel free to reach out to your representatives if you want them to discuss something. We constantly look at rates and locations. Next year we are looking to get a great rate at the Hotel Del Coronado. Question about retired attorney CLEs, he says retired attorneys are not really retired. To be consistent, you have to become inactive if you are truly retired. If you continue to dabble and be active, you need to take CLEs like the rest of us.
Thank you, Terry Coffing, you lost my vote today.
Refund bar dues.
Hey didn't you hear them. Bar dues haven't gone up in 15 years.
I am so excited about the Bar and the future of our profession.
10:55 is right on the money. Mr.Coffing blew it in two key respects, in my estimation:
1. He basically said that as to the 60% to 70% of bar complaints where no action is taken, that we should still essentially take action by requiring further education or training. He obviously has a fundamental misunderstanding of the process or of the nature of many complaints where no action is taken.
He seems to think that a complaint is automatically imbued with some substantive legitimacy and reliability just based on the fact someone made the complaint.
So, if a client makes a frivolous, improper, or even malicious complaint that previously would have been dismissed with no action taken, Coffing seems to imbue all such complaints with at least some level of reliability, and thus an attorney should be required to pay for, and spend the time, taking additional classes and training to learn to be a better lawyer. And then there will be a record of these requirements so it will pretty much count as some form of discipline, even though it would have formerly been dismissed with no action.
He doesn't realize how patently absurd and unfair this is. So, let me put it in terms he would understand. Let's say someone makes a complaint that Mr.Coffing represented them magnificently, and on a pro bono basis where the attorney fees would have ordinarily been $100,000,but they believe he did not fully discharge his ethical duties as he did not always pay for an uber to bring the client to and from appointments to his office.
Sounds comically absurd, doesn't it? Wrong. According to Mr. Coffing, the mere fact this complaint was made, although it previously would of course have been automatically dismissed, establishes it as having some real viability. Thus, Mr.Coffing should now be required, at his own time and expense, to take 20 units of educational seminars as to providing better client service.
2. This cluelessness is also established by him referencing that supposed study(probably a really flawed, very limited, faulty "study" clearly geared toward resulting in the desired conclusion) that small firms and solos don't have it worse in bar discipline than the larger, prominent firms.
First off, this is a totally anecdotal matter based one's experiences and does not lend itself to objective studies. For starters, we could never really define smaller firms vs. larger firms as to reputation and influence, even if we could potentially define them as to some arbitrary number of members. Also, it simply does not lend itself to this kind of study as every case is so factually different and results in different discipline.
The conclusion that the little guy has it worse is something resulting from experience and perception. These are conclusions, which although largely accurate in my view, result from life and experience and personal view, and cannot be calibrated statistically as there are so many varying subjective matters in play, and very little established objectivity.
But even if he believes in this so-called study or statistics, he is tone deaf to concerns of rank-and-file bar members if he thought it is effective to pronounce to us that our concerns in this area without merit because of reference to some absurd "study" or "statistics" that supposedly don't bear out our concerns.
12:00, I think the comments about additional education or training were meant to be constructive, to deter future errors and problems, etc.
But I get your point that many complaints are not merely lacking in viability, but are downright malicious, and even irrational. So, yes, to require attorneys to jump through hoops under those circumstances is simply a bridge too far.
But also in fairness to him, he was speaking of the second step–complaints that were not automatically dismissed upon initial review but instead proceeded to the investigation level before they were dismissed with no action taken. Those are the ones where it seems he believes further education and training could be constructive.
But I can't defend, or even mitigate, him instructing us that there is no preferential treatment of large, influential, prominent firms vs. the little guy. His sole justification, for his conclusion, appeared to be some brief, nebulous reference to "statistics", with little or no meaningful elaboration.
I'm curious if they are looking at the absolute numbers or relative numbers, when they talk about small vs. large. If a 100-attorney firm has to send 25 attorneys to deal with a complaint, that could look a lot worse — or a lot better — than a 2-person firm that has one attorney dealing with a complaint. All depends on how they're looking at the statistics.
You are correct, I heard him to say that the possibility of a CLE being assigned related to case that passed initial screening and raised concern not rising to the level of discipline
HARDESTY Building
NRS 338.200 Prohibition against naming public building or structure after current member of governing body. No public building or other public structure, other than a street or road, may be named after a person who is at the time a member of the governing body which has jurisdiction or control over the building or structure or which is responsible for it.
Interesting how this is done at the time of the pandemic and the virtual bar meeting that was scheduled only one week out. So people won't notice it. Nice Elissa Cadish and Abbi Silver.
There's a non-frivolous argument that NRS 338.200 doesn't apply, given some critical terms defined in Chapter 338 of NRS. "Governing body" is defined as "the board, council, commission or other body in which the general legislative and fiscal powers of a local government are vested. NRS 338.010(12) (emphasis added). "Local government" means "every political subdivision or other entity which has the right to levy or receive money from ad valorem or other taxes or any mandatory assessments, and includes, without limitation, counties, cities, towns, boards, school districts and other districts organized pursuant to [various chapters or provisions of NRS], and any agency or department of a county or city which prepares a budget separate from that of the parent political subdivision. The term includes a person who has been designated by the governing body of a local government to serve as its authorized representative." NRS 338.010(14).
The Nevada Judiciary, as a separate and co-equal department of state government, is not a local government, and neither the Nevada Supreme Court nor the Court of Appeals is a governing body because neither exercises "general legislative and fiscal powers," even though one court (or both) likely has "jurisdiction or control over the building . . . or . . . is responsible for it."
Looks like a good idea for a BDR for the next legislative session to broaden the prohibition in NRS 338.200. There's also a fair argument that public buildings, structures, streets, highways, and other public places shouldn't be named for someone until that someone is dead.
What has Hardesty done that merits naming the Las Vegas courthouse after him? Can anyone name three things other than being a judge that merits such an accolade? My impression is that he is not well thought of by the general legal community. Maybe the intelligentsia thinks well of him, but who really cares what the intelligentsia thinks.
As reflected in the naming order, he was "instrumental" in making the Court of Appeals and the new courthouse a reality.
9:26 — In addition to that pointed out by 8:37, Hardesty has been one of the hardest working SCNJ justices in a long while when it comes to promoting the integrity of the entire judiciary of this State. You may not like his often very business-like style, but you've gotta give the guy his due. He loves the courts, and he puts his money where his mouth is. If Lloyd George and George Foley can have buildings named after them, I've got no problem giving Jim Hardesty the same honor.
the building looks like the Olympic Garden decided to reopen at a new location. Who would want their name on it.
9:20, but there's a critical distinction between the naming of the two federal buildings and this building: the former took acts of Congress. Here, none of the people's elected representatives passed any legislative judgment on the naming of this building in any sort of process that even slightly resembles representative democracy. That's a problem.
James Hardesty is nasty. My husband works for one of the appellate courts. He targets small firms, and ruins lawyers' careers. He does not follow the laws in his orders, and he thinks he is above the law by trying to become a chancellor while a justice. The media needs to report this.
Hardesty is nasty and a tyrant. 10:20 is correct that he has ruined many good lawyers' careers. However the other 6 have sat by and let Hardesty do whatever he wants. What 9:20 calls "promoting the integrity of the entire judiciary of this State" is perceived by many in the judiciary as Hardesty the A-Hole just bullying judges and showing zero integrity except to himself. He loves himself; the courts not so much. And he hates justice.
He and the Nevada Supreme Court have screwed over numerous clients of mine over the years in my appellate practice. And from looking at other cases, they have done the same to many others. And at the head of the dinner table is James Hardesty. And the Nevada Supreme Court equals the Nevada Court of Appeals. There is nothing to nice about any of the justices that are currently on there.
Re 9:20 AM – "promoting the integrity of the entire judiciary of this State." That's a knee slapper.
As one poster says, we could probably have a very lengthy discussion of him as a justice (as to whether he's good, bad, or somewhere in the middle) but the focus of the current discussion should be on what he is able to establish for the courts, access to justice, etc.
And when putting the focus there I have some real concerns. He effectively lobbied for creation of the COA by arguing that they would not need their own building–that they would merely double up chambers and courtrooms with NSC justices, and thus the only real fiscal impact is the salaries of a few new justices and their staff.
So, the public bought it and agreed that if they could avoid spending tens of millions on a new building to house the new court, that they would be wiling to foot the dramatically smaller tax bill of paying for a few justices' salaries and their staff.
But then(and as predicted by some posters on this blog) it was only a matter of time before the hue and cry was sounded that the justices are all on top of each other, each court needs their own facility, their own space, etc.
The big sell that I thought made sense was that it'd make appeal times shorter. Has that happened?
The big sell to the public was that it wouldn't cost much at all, and the backlog would decrease.
The big sell to attorneys was faster appeal times, and citeable opinions from CoA.
The stated and statutory agreement agreement was that once a CoA was established, the most recent expansion of the NSC would get rolled back, and the number of NSC justices would be decreased.
So, yeah. If you want to take a look at what happened at each of those things, and still want to honor Hardesty, knock yourself out.