- Quickdraw McLaw
- 43 Comments
- 217 Views
- There is a civil bench-bar meeting today at noon in Courtroom 10D. Contact Department 26 JEA if you wan the Zoom link.
- Are you doing something special with your Valentine today?
- Where do all the single lawyers go to find love these days?
Attended the mandatory arbitrator training yesterday to familiarize the arbitrators with the amended rules. The biggest takeaway is if you intend to offer expert evidence (e.g., records review or ime) during a de novo, then you must offer it at arbitration. The arbitrator is to specifically state which causes of action were supported by competent evidence or expert opinions, and those that weren't, will likely be precluded from doing so later if the matter is de novo'd.
Everyone needs to read new Rules 20 and 22, and err on the side of caution until we see how this develops and/or we get some caselaw, which could take awhile. There are some potential traps for the unwary here.
The rules changes will drive up the cost of both plaintiff and defendant. Low value auto cases will inevitably require carrier's to retain an expert. The big take away is that a cause of action for which no evidence is presented at arbitration cannot later be argued/heard in a Trial de Novo.
The stated purpose of the rule changes is avoid the situation where a party does a minimum effort at arbitration. Better now to think of mandatory arbitration as if it were an actual trial and prepare accordingly.
This rule change is dangerous, but most of the Short Trial Judges have seen Insurance Defense counsel essentially blow off the arbitration, file for Trial DeNovo, and suffer no consequences for their bad faith failure to participate in arbitration. Maybe this change will make the arbitration process more meaningful and maybe it will reduce the number of de novos.
3:47PM–With trial de novo the underlying matter was sealed and the matter was heard anew. Do Novo was to preserve the right to jury trial. The case law said that arguments and non appearance of a defendant or party even the plaintiff was not enough for bad faith. Now the insurance company will have to load up on an expert in every case. This is against the purpose of arbitration. Most cases are resolved and or settled. This is against the spirit of the program. It is also potentially unconstitutional and deprives a party of the right to a jury trial. Many times a case changes from arbitration to short trial. More treatment. Surgical or injection recommendation. So if all these issues are not raised with medical evidence you can't argue it to a jury. C'mon. The arbitrators will have to write detailed decisions. The cases will get delayed in arbitration while the parties muster expert reports within the first six month period for the hearing. Many times the lawsuit is the first Notice of Claim. The problem is the plaintiffs' bar wanted a short trials to teach the carriers a lesson. They got it and it backfired on them. Now they want an arbitration and trial where the defense can't put up a defense. What is wrong with this picture.The plaintiffs in these arbitrations and short trials are not anymore prepared than the defense in a minimum limits case. The net result is that ADR is now more expensive, more time consuming and more ridiculous.
..And
As mentioned above, the Arbitrator's now have to prepare a written decision as a separate document from the Award. It will add considerable time to the Arbitrator's task. Maybe enough time so as to drive some away from serving as an Arbitrator.
Why wouldn't the Arbitrator simply require the parties to submit substantive briefs on the issues, which they can then use as a base for their written decision?
the ADR commissioners specifically said the arbitrator can require the parties to submit their own findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Proposed findings. You still have to write it. Plaintiff and Defendant tend to have different views of what are facts and findings.
To find true, everlasting love – the alley behind Little Darlings
They're hiring all positions – perhaps now's the time to go in-house to be general counsel?
I think 10:27 is thinking of a slightly different position.
Years ago, attorneys could find true love at Bonnie Springs Ranch or Anderson Dairy
Looks like I came to the right comment thread. What is the long term consequences of the feminization of the law in Nevada. The judiciary is now run by women, as is our legislature. Does that portend more justice or less?
Discuss.
'boutta be TTHHWWAACCCKKKEEDD!
Hopefully it means the end of dinosaurs like the OP.
Executive Branch in this state is exclusively male. Speaker of the Assembly is a man. Minority Floor Leader of the Assembly is a man. Majority Leader in Senate is a woman; Minority Leader is a woman. Eighth Judicial District Court has a chief judge who is a man. Not seeing the problem or feminization of the law.
I think 10:58's comment perfectly encapsulates the negative take on OP's query.
11:21- I think it is fair to question the underlying premise which is that there even has been a feminization of the law in Nevada.
OP the best time to ask lawdawg to delete your post was right after you clicked post. The next best time is now.
Michele Fiore is part of that feminized judiciary and she packs more heat than most dudes
MF has that BDE too.
10:45 is trolling for reactions, and it worked.
While I do not necessarily agree with OP's phrasing of the question, anytime you have dramatic demographic shifts (like NV's judiciary has seen over the last few decades), questions like this arise. The appropriate thing to do is not look at anecdotal evidence, but look at the many empirical studies comparing/contrasting judicial results of male and female judges. In about 5 minutes I found 5+ studies analyzing hundreds of judges' decisions and comparing leniency on criminal sentencing, imposition of alimony, etc.. From these studies we know there will GENERALLY be differences in decisions coming from a majority female bench as compared to a male-dominated bench. Nothing inherently good/bad about this, just something practitioners need to learn and adjust to.
Agree with 1:44 PM that it's ok to talk about this. Of all the female judges I have appeared in front of, there is only one who I feel confident is biased against men. I'm not going to name her here because it would distract from the main point of the conversation, which isn't her personally.
Overall, I can confidently say that attorneys and litigants in this town, on the whole, are not treated differently based on their gender. The one female judge I mention is in stark contrast to the pervasive, routine sexism that once permeated this profession and the progress that has been made since then. Things will never be perfect, but that progress is something to celebrate. After years of male domination of the bench, it's not a big deal that during this period of time an overwhelming majority of judges are female.
Good comment thread. I judge judges based on the content of their character and quality of their decisions, not the shape of their genitals.
It’s not a good thread. The entire thing is a response to a misogynist troll.
wHAAA. Cry harder.
Be careful, your eyes might get stuck like that, if you keep it up.
I know it's only February, but congrats to 10:45 for his nomination on dumbest comment of the year.
Yeah 10:45 is cringe
If your position is that there is no difference between men and women as a whole, then state it. If your position is that one is inherently more whatever than the other, than state it. Casting aspersions is juvenile and, ironically, qualifies as a true "dumbest comment" nominee.
1) Calling it "the feminization" of the law is silly. Not only because men can be effeminate, but because the law doesn't have gender.
2) As 11:20 pointed out, OP was factually incorrect about women controlling everything
3) "The judiciary is controlled by women" – guess I'll let Chief Judge Jerry Weiss know he better check in with the dual-X chromosome crowd before issuing any decisions.
Female poster here: Just taking the OP at face value. Nobody got no time to get upset over a blog post. Anyhoo, one example of the feminization: when I got to town (in a different century) Bosses Night was a big deal. Once the women to men lawyer ratio rose, that sucker disappeared, long before the Me Too movement
UFO spotted over Regional Justice Center. Should I be concerned?
That would be snow.
Some would say that the RJC has long ago been taken over by aliens who don't know very much about law.
"Where do all the single lawyers go to find love these days?"
Well, Spring Mountain Road between Valley View and Jones has a few places. But most of you already knew that.
Reminds me of the old joke about where to go for good medical care in Vegas. The answer to that and the question proposed by our bloglord is the same: Harry Reid International Airport.
Both I-15 North and I-15 South also have excellent medical care.
God sends his spaceships to America, the beautiful
They land at six o'clock and there we are, the dutiful
Eating from TV trays, tuned into Happy Days
Waiting for World War Three while Jesus slaves
To the mating calls of lawyers in love
Five dollars to make ya holler.
@ 5:04PM – Loved that song since before I became an attorney.