- Quickdraw McLaw
- 37 Comments
- 313 Views
By now you should have received your copy of the April Nevada Lawyer and it is full of hot-button topics ripe for discussion:
- BOG President Gene Leverty writes about the random trust account audits and mandatory malpractice insurance.
- The State Bar tackles the topic of reciprocity. (Did you see that 150 attorneys are practicing under the government/in-house attorney exception for licensure?)
- Boyd Law Dean Dan Hamilton argues for adopting the UBE.
- The breakdown of bar passage rates from 2008 through today.
Thoughts?
It is time to allow for reciprocity – I mean nothing can be worse than Boyd 13’ grads.
Dan Hamilton argues for reciprocity under the guise of "doing right by Nevada" and serving Nevada's interests. Las Vegas is a city that attracts people looking to start over in life, a unique characteristic compared to the neighboring jurisdictions that Hamilton references. If the current barriers to entry are lowered, you'll see a flood of failed lawyers from other jurisdictions trying to restart their lives here. These lawyers will be more likely to encounter disciplinary problems as well as commit malpractice both because they are less qualified and won't be familiar with Nevada law and procedure.
Further, you'll see a deluge of out of state lawyers obtain licenses here to practice remotely. They won't have any ties to the community, and they won't have any familiarity with the practice of law.
There has been an expressed concern that discilplinary problems come from the fact that lawyers are desperate for money. Lawyers mishandling cases or outright stealing money harms the public. If there are more lawyers admitted to practice in Nevada, there will be more disciplinary problems and the public will be harmed more frequently than it is now.
I am tired of Dan Hamilton chiming in on what ought to be happening with the Bar and practice in Nevada when (1) he isn't admitted to practice here; (2) isn't a practitioner; and (3) probably won't be here in 10 years. It bothers me that someone who isn't a part of the bar and won't have to live with the implications of these decisions is attempting to drive the discussion.
Dan, go back to writing your monthly puff pieces about how innovative UNLV Law School is. Stay out of an area you have absolutely no business being a part of.
To me, it also seems like it would hurt Boyd grads. Boyd grads are already here in the state, Boyd holds some courses meant to help pass the Nevada bar (at least they did, not sure if that's still the case now that Jennifer Carr has left), and Boyd grads pass the Nevada bar at a higher rate than do folks that went to out of state schools. It seems like all those advantages would be wiped away if every lawyer that strikes out in California, Utah, Arizona, etc. could just send in some money and add themselves to the glut of local lawyers. I asked Dean Hamilton this question once, and he was convinced that those people are already coming to Nevada even with the current bar situation, and that reciprocity wouldn't add to the competition. I am totally unconvinced. Moreover, I don't see the advantage. Out of state firms are not clamoring to hire Boyd grads. Boyd's place is to be a community law school that places its grads in the local community. Any grad that ventures elsewhere is, and has always been, an outlier.
"To me, it also seems like it would hurt Boyd grads." Ah, but most academic administrators are not driven by putting their students interests first. Most academic administrators are kingdom builders, looking to leave a legacy of any kind. Every law school in America wants to be a big, national, "elite" brand.
9:04 is correct; "I am tired of Dan Hamilton chiming in…." The organized bar busted a gut for that law school in its infancy. He has all the attributes of a dog except loyalty. Nice payback law school.
This, so much this: "I am tired of Dan Hamilton chiming in on what ought to be happening with the Bar and practice in Nevada when (1) he isn't admitted to practice here; (2) isn't a practitioner; and (3) probably won't be here in 10 years. It bothers me that someone who isn't a part of the bar and won't have to live with the implications of these decisions is attempting to drive the discussion."
Reciprocity will be an absolute disaster. Reciprocity will be a one way conveyor belt to Nevada not from Nevada. The Uniform Bar Exam has not been adopted in states which have a large influx of attorneys such as California, Texas, and Florida. The UBE has 30 minute essays and states which adopt the UBE don't even have any law of their respective state on the exam. It is a turn key operation to the National Conference of Bar Examiners. The UBE is a backdoor way to allow reciprocity. Most attorneys in Nevada don't want to practice anywhere else. A few have a connection to California, Arizona and Utah which are neighboring states. The 9 or more exceptions for the bar exam for the UNLV faculty and in house counsel (even government) must come to an end. 150 lawyers have limited licenses on motion! Lastly, why is UNLV complaining about the pass rate and the grading. They scored a 79 per cent for first time takers. If any of the law schools in California had such statistics they would not be complaining about their pass rate. At least the State Bar is informing its members regarding these issues. I don't believe they should dumb down the bar exam any more than it has been done already. There have been many changes to the exam and the grading. We used to be one of the tougher bars no more. The word is out and folks who can't pass California have their eyes on Nevada.
Speak for yourself, I'd like to move one day but really don't care to take another bar exam and the places I'd like to move to provide no reciprocity. I know of others also so there definitely are lawyers that would like to leave Nevada who don't due to the professional hassles involved.
9:59 did you even read the article?
"The 9 or more exceptions for the bar exam for the UNLV faculty and in house counsel (even government) must come to an end."
I generally agree with this, except I think it makes sense to keep the exception for UNLV faculty. For one thing, they either don't practice law or else they only practice in a limited clinic-type setting – either way, they're not overinflating the supply when it comes to paid legal work. For another thing, I think that academia intrinsically involves a lot of moving around, and if we required law professors to be fully licensed here we'd be screening out a lot of good candidates.
Agree with 10:12 that lack of reciprocity can really restrict professional movement and career options. But how does that make 9:59 wrong? True, as 10:19 suggests, based on how 9:59 argues and where the focus is placed, it raises a question if that 9:59 did anything beyond, at best, skimming the article.But simply because some of the points made by 9:59 are not particularly connected to the article in question, that is no reason to dismiss or belittle the points being made, or the conclusion concerning reciprocity.
Fact is that at this point reciprocity would be a disaster. Some of what 9:59 says in support of that conclusion is accurate, and some of what is said is a little tangential and open to question. But the conclusion, IMO, is spot on. It would be a disaster.
How is 9:59 wrong about reciprocity being a disaster? The fact that 10:12(and myself in the past)bemoans the restrictions caused by lack of reciprocity does not make 9:59 wrong. And the fact, as pointed out by 10:19, that 9:59 may have reached the conclusion without thoroughly reading the article(or perhaps not reading it at all) also does not make 9:59 wrong.
So, how is 9:59 wrong? Reciprocity might be in the best interests of certain individual attorneys and their careers and personal goals at a particular point in their lives(like it admittedly would have been for me at various times). But how is reciprocity, across the board, a great thing for our profession in Nevada?
Also (10:50 here) one of those 9 exceptions is for law students doing clinics/internships, and it would be straight up dumb to get rid of that exception. I learned a ton when I did that in school, and again I don't think that "baby's first IRL lawyering" is posing any actual problem in terms of market distorting effects.
10:50: I think reciprocity enhances the survival of the fittest aspect of the practice and will benefit the public and profession at large. When people come here from out of state, the best lawyers are going to rise to the top and survive. Those who are unable to meet the legal needs of the public in the marketplace will be slowly eliminated from the pool of lawyers.
The protectionist attitude taken by some Nevada lawyers seems to come from their concern that they won't be able to compete if there is more competition.
FPDs are an exception. They can already practice in federal court but occasionally need to appear in state court when a habeas case is sent back for exhaustion. Innocent people have been freed as a result. This exception should remain.
Also, a lot of this depends on what kind of reciprocity is permitted. So long as California doesn't allow reciprocity, we're not going to be flooded by them. If we allow admission on motion for states that do the same for us, then we can still have the requirement (as many states do) that they must have practiced for 5 of the last 7 years in that other jurisdiction. You can also do like Arizona does and require people seeking admission by motion to complete a CLE course on state law. Arizona has a 6 hour online course covering Civil Procedure, Torts, Contracts, Criminal Procedure, Family Law, Real Property, Professional Responsibility and Constitutional Law.
FPDs and AUSAs should not be allowed to practice without filing a Motion or taking the bar. The federal courts in Nevada and California used to require admission to the bar. No longer for some reason. It is being abused by federal practitioners like Assistant Federal PDs, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and immigration lawyers. Years ago they were required to be admitted to the bar. Sometimes they would allow them time to get admitted. I am sick of all these "foreign attorneys" coming to Nevada who are not licensed.
10:12 AM–Time for you to leave. I speak for myself and the majority of others. I took the bar to move here so just take the bar to wherever you want to move to. Everybody has to take it in California. End of story.
Dan Hamilton is simply seeking to make it easier for Boyd grads to pass the bar. The higher the pass rate, the higher Boyd's rankings. The higher Boyd's rankings, the more it helps Mr. Hamilton get a job at a more prestigious law school, leaving Nevada behind.
But after the UBE is adopted, Nevada will be swamped with out-of-state lawyers; lawyers who have no interest in Nevada, do not work here, do not live here, and will simply clog up the courts, take away work from Nevada's attorneys, and make the practice of law nastier.
No thank you.
The quality and quantity of Nevada lawyers is fine. There is no need to allow a tsunami of out-of-state lawyers to flood Nevada.
true
Admissions for government / in-house should be limited to 3 years.
Reciprocity and UBE would be mistakes. Look at states where there are too many lawyers and what has happened to quality of life for those lawyers (and their families.)
What has happened to them? Have you any hard data or is this purely anecdotal evidence? I think if you're a good lawyer, you've got nothing to worry about with reciprocity.
The plural of "anecdote" is "data."
“Concerning the difference between man and the jackass: some observers hold that there isn’t any. But this wrongs the jackass.”
― Mark Twain
Curious – who is representing Wynn in his defamation case?
Peterson Baker
Tammy is "localing" for a firm from Georgia,
http://www.linwoodlaw.com/
Which I had never heard of but which looks like a serious outfit.
Will you look at, a reply brief that makes personal attacks on the lawyer. How original. Trash can.
When is early voting?
Anybody have any good campaign stories? I am getting bombarded with Elana Graham emails that are questionable.
Who in the ghoul is putting out those emails? Makes me want to vote for Jimmy Dean
Dave Thomas. Letizia reps Jimmy Dean and his court pajamas.
UNLV is having a lecture on gun control. Elissa Cadish should speak on her stances on gun control.
Ask Harold Reid.
I never heard him called that. Me borrow.
I only read the discipline section of the Nevada lawyer. Should we debate whether we area with the majority or the dissent in Cohen?
*agree
Everyone agrees the presumptive discipline for his sins was disbarment. The majority decided that his lack of prior discipline, personal problems, character, cooperative attitude, and interim rehab meant that he only warranted a 5-year suspension, restitution, and retaking the bar.
So the moral of the story is, if your partners catch you defrauding them and clients, if you can convince them not to report you to the bar, the NSC will consider your lack of a previous record a plus when your partners eventually get tired of your future shenanigans and DO report you.