Love how people bitch and moan about the good ol' boys (and gals) at the RJC favoring old town money, and then complain when a relative outsider applies. You want that good ol' boy on the wall, you need that good ol' boy on the wall!
Don't know Gall but she has a solid resume. Roohani seems like she's be good too. Maybe a tad early for her, but certainly qualified.
Existing law provides that the period for filing a declaration of candidacy: (1) for judicial candidates begins the first Monday in January of the year of the election and ends the second Friday after the first Monday in January; and (2) for all nonjudicial candidates begins the first Monday in March of the year of the election and ends the second Friday after the first Monday in March. (NRS 293.177) Sections 6-8 and 14 of A.B. 1 provide that for the 2022 General Election the period for filing a declaration of candidacy for judicial candidates is the same as the period for filing a declaration of candidacy for all nonjudicial candidates and, thus, the period for filing a declaration of candidacy for both judicial and nonjudicial candidates for the 2022 General Election will begin the first Monday in March of 2022 and end the second Friday after the first Monday in March of 2022.
As far as Karl Armstrong, he's the only one of the three who seems to be widely recognized. Even though he appears to generate some negative opinions as well as the positive, sometimes name-recognition by itself(even if not completely of a positive nature) is a huge advantage, even more so if he's been a finalist more than once.
So, he could have a good shot. But then again it depends on how you look at it. If someone is a finalist for appointment a couple times, as well as narrowly missing out on getting elected a couple times, does that bode well for their eventual appointment that they keep getting close?
Or is it instead more the case that a prospective appointee only has a limited shelf life and they wear out their welcome by the third time they are a finalist but still cannot close the deal?
Guest
Anonymous
November 17, 2021 10:38 pm
2:16, there could be something to the "limited shelf life" theory you mention.
Troy Peyton is someone who comes to mind–exceptional attorney, and would have made a wonderful judge. And many people strongly agree with me as he was among the final three multiple times. But each time he narrowly missed out.
So, it appears he eventually stopped applying. Don't know if that was because he simply got frustrated, or if he also deduced that if he was not yet appointed that he would likely remain un-appointed even if he kept applying.
Some people did suggest he was a finalist one time too many and that the next time, rather than it being determined that it was finally "his turn", that they would instead turn to some newer faces. And there could be something to this because sometimes someone is a finalist twice in a row, and then the next couple times they continue to apply but they fail to make the cut and are not among the three names advanced to the Governor.
In addition to Troy, if memory serves Mike Davidson was another one who got close a few times, but I believe no longer bothers to apply.
Troy? Mike? If either of you learn of this post, please apply again for a future vacancy. Both of you are a thousand times better than some who actually get appointed(an aside: yes, Mike, shall we say, is quite "confidant"–that's a diplomatic way of putting it–but that doesn't change the fact that he has already probably forgotten more law than most of these applicants will ever learn over their entire careers).Believe his early career mentor was Stew Bell. Can't get any better than that.
They are white males. Has Sisolak ever appointed a white male to the bench? Those issues aside, it takes a special personality to get that close to appointment that many times and be declined and still want to be applying. Davidson was one of the finalists for Department 11 when Gonzalez got appointed (along with Tim Williams). That means 17+ years later he would have to still be slogging through judicial applications. I understand why enough was enough for him.
Plus competing against people who weren't even out of law school the first time he was a finalist. Unfortunately experience and merit has little to do with it, otherwise Peyton and Davidson would have been appointed long ago, and Blair Parker would have made the cut this time. But looking at what happened to Trevor Atkin, I can hardly blame qualified people for not wanting to get involved.
re: Judicial Appointment
White males need not apply. The process is open only to females and minorities. The candidate matching both qualifications is a finalist. Experience, skill and talent cannot overcome this basic criteria.
Armstrong is a perpetual candidate but has been involved in the state for long time.
Gall has good civil experience but is too new to town and too young. Not strong in the Nevada community.
Roohani has Eric Johnson disease. Tell me again your state court experience. Zero.
Guest
Anonymous
November 17, 2021 10:43 pm
2:38-I always assumed it was both dynamics. People probably simply get sick of repeatedly applying(particularly when they are beat out by much lesser applicants for purely pollical reasons), plus in some cases they may eventually conclude that nothing will ever change and that it will always be the case of "close, but no cigar."
Nothing beats the batshit craziness of Pahrump residents.
Guest
Ben Nadig
November 17, 2021 10:55 pm
I don't know two of the three candidates but I know Ellie Roohani. She is/was an AUSA and I considered her to be fair and a generally good person. A lot of AUSA's would sell out their own mother if it advanced their careers but I never got that vibe from her. So I have nothing but good things to say about her and I hope she gets the appointment.
Ben I appreciate your candor. Does the fact that she has never practiced in the Court to which she is asking to be appointed cause you any concern? Because frankly its a disqualifying factor for me.
Cristina Silva was an AUSA, didn’t do any state work before taking the bench and she and I had a bit of a negative run in based on my office getting raided by metro intelligence back in the day. Nothing happened cause I did the right thing thank god but I was a little apprehensive when she took the bench. I have nothing but good things to say about her; she is prepared, she is smart and she knows the law. I would assume that Ellie is similar to Judge Silva in those ways and I would wholeheartedly recommend her for the appointment.
Why would it be a DQ? Sure federal is a little different, slightly different rules and procedures, but everything is generally in the same ballpark. Nothing a little extra attention to detail in NRCP and EDCR your first few years can't address.
Some of the best hires I've made have been people who didn't practice in my practice area but showed they had the ability to pick up the new area. I see no difference here.
Because you are not hiring someone on a learning curve. You are taking candidates who have never practiced before this Court and stating that they are the most qualified to preside and enforce state laws, state rules of civil procedure or local court rules under which they have literally never practiced. Unlike hiring associates, we are not appointing based upon aptitude for where you will be in 3-5 years; we are appointing for who is the best candidate today to don a robe tomorrow and adjudicate cases in the Nevada state courts.
Disagree. The differences in rules are minimal. A badass in federal court wouldn't take 3-5 years to "catch up" on minimally different NRCPs. Not even close.
What am I missing here. Most AUSA never try cases like the Federal PD. Eric Johnson was the exception–he proseucted some tough cases and tried them. Being a federal prosecutor you have a lot of power and can get most folks to plead guilty with such Draconian sentencing ranges if convicted. The civil section seldom has a trial. I will concede that most AUSA's are a cut above in legal education and training than their state counterparts. That being said I don't know why this makes one a qualified candidate for state court.
Not just no state court experience, but no state civil experience? That is a distinct minus for an appointment. Not to mention, yes, it can take 3-5 years to learn the ins and outs of practice in a state court. Night and day from federal court. It's not just textbook NRCP rules. It's the whole shebang. It's knowing, for one minuscule example, that offers get better closer to trial in state court, which almost 100% never happens in federal. That little nuance makes a difference for a judge to know when evaluating a plea agreement, or negotiation, or continuance of trial, and is something that is routinely asked at a federal change of plea hearing (and almost never in state court). There are a thousand other things like that, which keep the respective courts moving smoothly on track, and which are not learned lickedly split.
Guest
Anonymous
November 18, 2021 4:57 pm
A different thread. My employer is not paying for CLE's – there are 8 lawyers at our firm. Should he pay? Or am I missing something?
No to Karl Armstrong
Agreed. He's not a nice person. I can only imagine how bad he'd be on the bench. No.
He's the only one I've ever heard of before, and what I've heard is not all that great.
This is at least the 2nd time Karl has made it to the final 3. Nice guy but oh hell no. Gall has been in town 5 years?
Love how people bitch and moan about the good ol' boys (and gals) at the RJC favoring old town money, and then complain when a relative outsider applies. You want that good ol' boy on the wall, you need that good ol' boy on the wall!
Don't know Gall but she has a solid resume. Roohani seems like she's be good too. Maybe a tad early for her, but certainly qualified.
I read the candidates' information provided and I lean towards Gall. She has the required civil work experience for the bench.
So did the special session not address the filing date for judges?
Yes, it did. A.B. 1 of the 33rd Special Session addresses this.
Existing law provides that the period for filing a declaration of candidacy: (1) for judicial candidates begins the first Monday in January of the year of the election and ends the second Friday after the first Monday in January; and (2) for all nonjudicial candidates begins the first Monday in March of the year of the election and ends the second Friday after the first Monday in March. (NRS 293.177) Sections 6-8 and 14 of A.B. 1 provide that for the 2022 General Election the period for filing a declaration of candidacy for judicial candidates is the same as the period for filing a declaration of candidacy for all nonjudicial candidates and, thus, the period for filing a declaration of candidacy for both judicial and nonjudicial candidates for the 2022 General Election will begin the first Monday in March of 2022 and end the second Friday after the first Monday in March of 2022.
Thank you.
As far as Karl Armstrong, he's the only one of the three who seems to be widely recognized. Even though he appears to generate some negative opinions as well as the positive, sometimes name-recognition by itself(even if not completely of a positive nature) is a huge advantage, even more so if he's been a finalist more than once.
So, he could have a good shot. But then again it depends on how you look at it. If someone is a finalist for appointment a couple times, as well as narrowly missing out on getting elected a couple times, does that bode well for their eventual appointment that they keep getting close?
Or is it instead more the case that a prospective appointee only has a limited shelf life and they wear out their welcome by the third time they are a finalist but still cannot close the deal?
2:16, there could be something to the "limited shelf life" theory you mention.
Troy Peyton is someone who comes to mind–exceptional attorney, and would have made a wonderful judge. And many people strongly agree with me as he was among the final three multiple times. But each time he narrowly missed out.
So, it appears he eventually stopped applying. Don't know if that was because he simply got frustrated, or if he also deduced that if he was not yet appointed that he would likely remain un-appointed even if he kept applying.
Some people did suggest he was a finalist one time too many and that the next time, rather than it being determined that it was finally "his turn", that they would instead turn to some newer faces. And there could be something to this because sometimes someone is a finalist twice in a row, and then the next couple times they continue to apply but they fail to make the cut and are not among the three names advanced to the Governor.
In addition to Troy, if memory serves Mike Davidson was another one who got close a few times, but I believe no longer bothers to apply.
Troy? Mike? If either of you learn of this post, please apply again for a future vacancy. Both of you are a thousand times better than some who actually get appointed(an aside: yes, Mike, shall we say, is quite "confidant"–that's a diplomatic way of putting it–but that doesn't change the fact that he has already probably forgotten more law than most of these applicants will ever learn over their entire careers).Believe his early career mentor was Stew Bell. Can't get any better than that.
They are white males. Has Sisolak ever appointed a white male to the bench? Those issues aside, it takes a special personality to get that close to appointment that many times and be declined and still want to be applying. Davidson was one of the finalists for Department 11 when Gonzalez got appointed (along with Tim Williams). That means 17+ years later he would have to still be slogging through judicial applications. I understand why enough was enough for him.
Plus competing against people who weren't even out of law school the first time he was a finalist. Unfortunately experience and merit has little to do with it, otherwise Peyton and Davidson would have been appointed long ago, and Blair Parker would have made the cut this time. But looking at what happened to Trevor Atkin, I can hardly blame qualified people for not wanting to get involved.
re: Judicial Appointment
White males need not apply. The process is open only to females and minorities. The candidate matching both qualifications is a finalist. Experience, skill and talent cannot overcome this basic criteria.
@307, @957, Sisolak appointed Atkin in 2018.
Armstrong is a perpetual candidate but has been involved in the state for long time.
Gall has good civil experience but is too new to town and too young. Not strong in the Nevada community.
Roohani has Eric Johnson disease. Tell me again your state court experience. Zero.
2:38-I always assumed it was both dynamics. People probably simply get sick of repeatedly applying(particularly when they are beat out by much lesser applicants for purely pollical reasons), plus in some cases they may eventually conclude that nothing will ever change and that it will always be the case of "close, but no cigar."
https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/nye-county-officials-refer-district-attorney-for-ethics-investigation-2479881/
Nothing beats small town politics, c.f. Mesquite and Boulder City.
Nothing beats the batshit craziness of Pahrump residents.
I don't know two of the three candidates but I know Ellie Roohani. She is/was an AUSA and I considered her to be fair and a generally good person. A lot of AUSA's would sell out their own mother if it advanced their careers but I never got that vibe from her. So I have nothing but good things to say about her and I hope she gets the appointment.
Ben I appreciate your candor. Does the fact that she has never practiced in the Court to which she is asking to be appointed cause you any concern? Because frankly its a disqualifying factor for me.
Cristina Silva was an AUSA, didn’t do any state work before taking the bench and she and I had a bit of a negative run in based on my office getting raided by metro intelligence back in the day. Nothing happened cause I did the right thing thank god but I was a little apprehensive when she took the bench. I have nothing but good things to say about her; she is prepared, she is smart and she knows the law. I would assume that Ellie is similar to Judge Silva in those ways and I would wholeheartedly recommend her for the appointment.
Why would it be a DQ? Sure federal is a little different, slightly different rules and procedures, but everything is generally in the same ballpark. Nothing a little extra attention to detail in NRCP and EDCR your first few years can't address.
Some of the best hires I've made have been people who didn't practice in my practice area but showed they had the ability to pick up the new area. I see no difference here.
Because you are not hiring someone on a learning curve. You are taking candidates who have never practiced before this Court and stating that they are the most qualified to preside and enforce state laws, state rules of civil procedure or local court rules under which they have literally never practiced. Unlike hiring associates, we are not appointing based upon aptitude for where you will be in 3-5 years; we are appointing for who is the best candidate today to don a robe tomorrow and adjudicate cases in the Nevada state courts.
Disagree. The differences in rules are minimal. A badass in federal court wouldn't take 3-5 years to "catch up" on minimally different NRCPs. Not even close.
#freetheshaman
#freebonniebulla
#freecreepyjoe
The travesty is that the most qualified candidate — Adam Ganz — didn't get a second look.
#free5:50
What am I missing here. Most AUSA never try cases like the Federal PD. Eric Johnson was the exception–he proseucted some tough cases and tried them. Being a federal prosecutor you have a lot of power and can get most folks to plead guilty with such Draconian sentencing ranges if convicted. The civil section seldom has a trial. I will concede that most AUSA's are a cut above in legal education and training than their state counterparts. That being said I don't know why this makes one a qualified candidate for state court.
Not just no state court experience, but no state civil experience? That is a distinct minus for an appointment. Not to mention, yes, it can take 3-5 years to learn the ins and outs of practice in a state court. Night and day from federal court. It's not just textbook NRCP rules. It's the whole shebang. It's knowing, for one minuscule example, that offers get better closer to trial in state court, which almost 100% never happens in federal. That little nuance makes a difference for a judge to know when evaluating a plea agreement, or negotiation, or continuance of trial, and is something that is routinely asked at a federal change of plea hearing (and almost never in state court). There are a thousand other things like that, which keep the respective courts moving smoothly on track, and which are not learned lickedly split.
A different thread. My employer is not paying for CLE's – there are 8 lawyers at our firm. Should he pay? Or am I missing something?
He's a cheap jerk. Start looking for a new firm.
He should pay. That's almost unheard of.