- Quickdraw McLaw
- 49 Comments
- 108 Views
The May issue of Nevada Lawyer is out and deals primarily with professional responsibility. Of note is the message from the president, Gene Leverty, on Being Accountable. In it he discusses the success of the Office of Bar Counsel, the proposal for random trust account audits and mandatory malpractice insurance, as well as recent changes to advertising rules (for more information on rule changes visit here). For those of you clamoring to know what the Board of Governors is up to, here it is. What are your thoughts? Anyone have more details on the mandatory malpractice insurance proposal? Any predictions?
What would happen if BOG or Bar Counsel focused audit powers on client invoices for services [allegedly] provided by one of the national or regional law firms?
"There is nothing to see here, move along."
I work for one of the national or regional law firms here. I do not understand your question. Are you implying that national and regional firms in Las Vegas invoice clients for services that were not in fact provided? If you have evidence of such, random audits should not be necessary; the State Bar should already be aware of such misconduct by virtue of your satisfaction of your obligations under NRPC 8.3(a).
Did you know that there is no requirement that what the State Bar finds when they audit your Trust Account has to remain confidential? Look at SCR 78.5. Look at the provisions for the revised rule on the Random Audits; no protections or confidentiality. If Stan wants to let anyone know how much money you are holding for which clients, he is allowed to do so.
Tell me again why the State Bar needs more power when it abuses the powers that it already has?
"Each member of the board . . . makes choices that undoubtedly earn the disapproval of some in our bar, some of whom simply don’t want to admit they did wrong, because they do not want to step up and handle their own obligations.
* * *
"'Me, me, me,' arguments do not assist us in solving issues to protect the public and the honor of the legal profession. Let’s all take responsibility for this goal. Yes, it is maybe tougher to take responsibility versus ignoring a situation, but we are members of a profession that requires each of us to be responsible."
What an admirable goal. I say we start by focusing at the top–the BOG.
Hi Gene!
I am a member of the bar who disapproves of how OBC and the BOG has conducted itself. I think the out of state travel junkets are silly and a waste of money. I also read Nevada Lawyer each month and see the inconsistency in discipline.
Re: "some of whom simply don’t want to admit they did wrong" I've never been disciplined by the Bar. Maybe the problem isn't my ability to admit I was wrong (for what?), but that the Bar is out of touch and not being governed in a way that benefits the public or the profession. To attribute criticism to the sour grapes of the disciplined is a classic, albeit clumsy, act of gas lighting.
I have never voted in a BOG election. I will be voting this time. My vote will go to challengers who increase transparency, reduce cost and institute consistency in discipline.
I echo 9:28AM's statements….
As has been posted here previously the recent discipline cases from the Supremes makes clear that cooperating with the bar nets you ZERO benefit. What good is "admit[ting] they did wrong, because they do not want to step up and handle their own obligations" when that act gets you no mitigation or consideration from the final deciders.
The BOG wants to make us believe that the criticism about out of state bar conventions, spending of dues monies,and ramming through proposals, etc., is because we don't want to take responsibly. I mean that could be the ONLY reason to oppose those proposals right BOG? I mean it couldn't be because these are proposals that will fundamentally change our profession if enacted or because the BOG spends money recklessly and isn't transparent.
I too will be voting in this BOG election (and haven't previously). I have a nice list of all current BOG members on page 6 of the magazine. All BOG incumbents you will not get my vote.
I just took a look at the 2017 Annual Report on the website. I'd be interested in others' comments on it.
Each of the above statements comes across as folks who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar. That said, any discipline imposed is always subject to de novo review by the Supreme Court. If you have concerns about inconsistencies, you should take it up with our Justices.
As far as the BOG goes, your votes in one election will not make a difference. Given the positions are on staggered terms, you need to vote in each and every election to effectuate any change.
Dear Gene, you ignorant swine:
Please explain the recent Discipline Decision in which the attorney went to the OBC prior to any criminal charges, wound up his practice before any proceedings were leveled, was told by the OBC to "suspend himself" in exchange for an 18-24 month suspension and then for cooperating got hit with s 53 months suspension. Got zero credit for the nine mitigators stipulated by the State Bar. Got a longer suspension that the similar people who never admitted fault.
That is the precedent Gene. Would you say "admitting they did wrong" is a good policy based upon that precedent? Would you say that an attorney who goes to the OBC 8 months before being charged and crafts a plan to suspend himself for the protection of the Bar did "not want to step up and handle their own obligations"? Gene, I have tracked every discipline decision for the past 8 years because I handle lawyer discipline/malpractice cases. I have never been disciplined but I have observed the utter mess that the State Bar has become before and during your leadership. The message has never been more clear from the last 2 years and your letter Gene. Its "us versus them"; State Bar versus us members. You even talked about us in the Bar Membership in the third person. You are an idiot who has no idea what you are talking about.
10:11– I could not disagree with you more. Never had my hand in the cookie jar. Never even had a private letter of reprimand when there were such a thing as private letters. There is nothing in the previous posts that indicates that any of these people had their hand in cookie jar. Its the same faulty logic that Leverty employs: only people who have been Star Chamber'd would be against the Star Chamber. Fallacy.
Yes your votes for the BOG will make a big difference. There will a dent made in the BoG this election. The unananimous backslapping that have been BoG meetings will be over. Greater transparency in BoG proceedings will come to light. Want to know why Governors currently feel safe ramrodding bullshit down our throats? Because there is no repercussions for doing it because nobody knows what they are doing.
10:11AM or perhaps I should say "Gene", 9:59am here…
I have never had any issues with the bar or "caught with their hand in the cookie jar". But I can read discipline decisions and proposed ADKT's and understand the broad and serious ramifications to the proposed overhauling of our profession that is being pushed through. Given the opposition comments in the audit survey, the comments submitted to the Supreme Court, and the posts here, I am not alone in that concern.
"If you have concerns about inconsistencies, you should take it up with our Justices." Really, you mean take it up with the same people(courtesy of Hardesty) that gave OBC its marching orders? Right.
10:23am is correct, our votes do matter and I suspect many of us who didn't vote before will most definitely be voting now.
Dear Gene, BOGS, the spineless, and Hardesty,
Go to hell!
What a contradictory piece of garbage. All attorneys need to take responsibility. Gene, what have you and the current BoG taken responsibility for? Answer: "No no, you misunderstand. The attorneys on the Board are excellent attorneys, perfect in every way. We told you about the excellent job that the OBC and BoG are doing. We do excellent work. It is YOU PEOPLE who need to take responsibility." I think its time for the BoG to take responsibility for its mistakes and for its mismanagement of the State Bar. Look in the mirror Gene. Your membership hates you, and this column shows why. Take responsibility for reaping what you sow.
Who YOU PEOPLE?
Looking at that rule changes page on the state bar web site, I see they extended the term limits of BOG members so if you get elected to a leadership role in your eighth year, you can stay on the BOG for 11 years instead of 8. The concurring opinion is from Hardesty who says there should be no term limits! https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/ADKT-0519-Order.pdf
That is OUTRAGEOUS.
Wtf? He is making the RJC look good right now.
Um Hardesty was the author but Stiglich joined him and so did Parraguirre.
Stiglich is starting to follow Hardesty around like a puppy dog, including into some pretty ridiculous decisions.
Term limits are absolutely essential. Not surprised Hardesty's not a fan of term limits. Too bad voters turned down judicial term limits in 1996.
As for the BOG, paraphrasing the old joke, "Bar Governors and diapers should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.”
Thank you for bringing this to everyone's attention. Just got the May Issue and noticed that the President in his column is talking about "Mandatory Malpractice Insurance". I thought this was not before the Supreme Court only the issue of the Random Trust Audits. If anyone knows, please clarify. I am not pleased with what the Board of Governors has been doing. The random trust audits will be onerous and unfair. The additional requirement for mandatory malpractice insurance will drive folks out of the practice. The results of the survey on that issue are wrong. In my circle of attorneys, most don't have malpractice insurance at all and have not had it. Government lawyers don't have it. Corporate attorneys don't need it. Insurance staff counsel don't have it or need it. The only ones who have it are in larger law firms or higher risk practices like personal injury or criminal (many criminal attorneys don't have it). The Board of Governors are out of touch. We need to know before voting how they voted to support or not support these proposals. Board proceedings used to be more open with "Town Hall" type of proceedings and invitations to attend Board meetings. Now there seems to be a veil of secrecy.
Have you been to a BoG meeting? I have. I can truthfully say that it is a frightening process if you want reasoned discussion which really looks out of the best interests of the membership of the Bar, the public and the interests of justice. This is why I agree with the poster above that BoG candidates who run on transparency of the Board Meetings and letting members know what are otherwise going on behind closed doors will win and bring sunshine.
I work at a small shop, and I've worked at a big shop, and I think mandatory malpractice insurance is a good thing. It's an overhead expense like your westlaw/lexis subscription/rent. It protects clients who trust and hire an attorney, and provides some remedy when people screw up. Just like car insurance. Of course, much lower rates should apply to those that are in practice areas that "don't need it." FYI, I'm not a fan of the random trust audits.
The thing about malpractice insurance is that it isn't going to do anything about attorneys/staff stealing from trust accounts since most if not all of those policies exclude theft.
I've only been an attorney for ~14 years now and not once have I ever not had malpractice insurance. Only two of those years was with a large ~300 attorney regional firm, the remaining was two of my own firms that ranged from 2 attorneys at the beginning to ~10 attorneys at its peak, now new firm at just 2 attorneys. I can't imagine practicing without malpractice insurance. I like the idea that if I try something novel and push the envelope on some things that are legally supportable but which may or may not work, that I have insurance to back me up if my decision was incorrect. It lets me "stretch my legs" so to speak on some cases that need creative solutions.
I laughed about the "Liberty Bell Award" given to Commissioner Bulla (page 26). It says she got it for upholding the rule of law and encouraging respect for the law in courts. It is clear that the people giving this award have never spent any time in Bulla's courtroom. Because she refuses to issue any opinions that the bar can follow and/or rely on, she makes up the rule of law depending on her mood, the day, and who is before her. That is not upholding the rule of law. Moreover, just spending time in her courtroom reveals her inability to encourage respect for the law in courts. She thinks SHE is the law, and making everyone feel stupid forces them to respect her and therefore the "law," but that is not the same as respecting the law.
What a joke!
She reamed my ass out for nothing while I was very pregnant. Nice lady!
Boonie is a BLT.
Boonie? I do not even want to know what BLT stands for?
12:16 — Nice touch playing the pregnancy card as an excuse for bad lawyering.
12:07 — It's clear that you don't need Commissioner Bulla to make YOU stupid.
916 is an asshole. Nothing like harassing a pregnant woman.
1032 — So you think that District Court judicial officers go out of their way to harass pregnant women? Who's the asshole?
Get it on a transcript or audio and go to the media. These judges and Bonnie are getting out of hand. More Grierson and Gonzales legacy to build on.
625 — Be careful what you wish for.
I agree with 6:25. 8:26, are you mob?
That sounds like a threat, 8:26 must be Grierson.
Judges should not be screaming or threatening attorneys. My public service announcement for the day: Take your complaint either to the media or the County Manager. Betsy Gonzales is Steve Grierson.
I need Nevada Lawyer like I need another a**hold. This edition specialized in giving me childish advice, such as promptly return a client's call, be civil in court. We are adults, treat us as such. I swear, the BOG treats us like we are in kindergarten. Anyone want to join forces to dismantle the bar? I guess I'm delusional again.
I am on the bandwagon with you. We understand dismantling is not really an option but stripping it bare would seem worthwhile. Ditching the PoS "Nevada Lawyer" would be a good start. I would be willing to write a retort to the Leverty article (with statistics that actually are rooted in fact and are actually relevant) but who are we kidding? That response would never be printed.
They let Stan doing an article last year about how fabulous the OBC is. I submitted a response article showing the gross disparities and inconsistencies in Bar Discipline. SBN refused to print the article which was critical of the OBC.
12:41 PM–Eliminating Nevada Lawyer is the equivalent to killing the messenger for the message. There have been a lot of good discussions lately regarding issues in the Nevada Lawyer such as reciprocity among others. Without the publication, where would we be. I find it convenient when I am traveling or waiting somewhere to peruse. However, I am in favor of eliminating the Annual Meeting. The same 200 lawyers attend it every year. There should really be an official avenue to post, complain, or gripe besides this blog. Perhaps the bar should encourage comments on subjects at a single place.
I have spent a fair amount of time defending my fellow attorneys in actions brought by the bar. In half the cases, answering the phone or returning a call would have been a huge difference in the defense of the case. Not a text, not an email, call or meet in person. Sounds childish, but it is sound advice that I wish other would heed.
You anonymous commenters want to talk about OBC star chambers, but here you sit complaining and criticizing in your echo chamber of a blog. there are probably just a handful of you that are dissatisfied and posting over and over again to make it seem like there is some great discontent with the OBC and BOG. The best part is neither you nor I can prove it either way in this forum, allowing you to continue on thinking you are right.
I completely agree with you 1:36 when you say that you have no evidence in support of your assertions. With the random audits issue, the Bar actually solicited comments, got comments and then ignored the comments and claimed that there was support for its proposal in spite of the actual evidence.
So why not do the same for the OBC? Lay out the facts that shows the discipline is consistent and let the membership decide whether the OBC is going in the right direction. There is a case cited above in which an attorney cooperated and got killed for cooperating with the OBC. That is not an echo chamber; that was fact. I have not seen a single argument on this blog from anyone that disciplinary actions should not be taken. Is your argument that there is no unfairness and inconsistency in the disciplinary system (when there is evidence that shows its wildly divergent) or is your argument that people don't care? And if it is the latter, are you really advocating that an unfair and wildly inconsistent system is OK so long as not 50.1% of the populace is not protesting? I don't want to talk about the profound problems going on with the OBC; I want (and want others) to do something about it.
Are there inconsistencies in the discipline process, absolutely! The same can also be said in any discipline process, e.g. the criminal justice system. How many times have 2 defendants (even co-defendants) ended up with different outcomes for the same offense?
With respect to the cited case of the attorney that negotiated the cooperation deal with OBC yet received the 53 month suspension instead of the agreed term, certain things need to be remembered. The rejection of the negotiated punishment was not by OBC who did in fact recommend the agreed upon term but rather by the NSC who has final say in the matter (and was not involved in the original negotiations). Just like in the criminal law setting, any negotiations between the prosecutor and the defendant is not binding on the court but merely a recommendation to the court (which is normally accepted and followed). The court is not required to impose the agreed upon sentence and can instead impose whatever sentence it determines in appropriate in the specific case.
Additionally, it is an assumption that the attorney received no benefit from his cooperation with OBC. Granted he didn't receive the benefit of the bargain he anticipated, but who can say with any degree of certainty that no benefit was received. It is just as likely that in the absence of that cooperation that one or more of the justices would have pushed for more significant discipline, possibly including disbarment. Without being behind the closed doors when the justices decided the punishment, we the spectators, can only guess at what would have occurred had he not cooperated.
Slow down, 2:54. Those thoughts are way to thoughtful for this blog.
And besides, according to the equally anonymous 1:36 there's just a handful of us, some undoubtedly with multiple personality disorders, who are anonymously "posting over and over again to make it seem like there is some great discontent with the OBC and BOG." So like 1:36 says, it can't be proven but for all we know, every Nevada lawyer just loves the OBC and BOG.
2:54– It is not speculation; you can read the decision yourself and see it really clearly. Anyone who tracks discipline decisions knows that there is presently a baseline suspension for felonies (it is 4 years before mitigation and aggravation is considered). You then should be able to track the aggravating factors and mitigating factors. However the discipline decision gave no credit for the mitigation. How do you know? Read the Decision. In fact that Nevada Supreme Court stated that the period during which the Attorney suspended himself at the direction of the State Bar OBC counted ZERO towards the suspension, which meant that the attorney's suspension for cooperating and complying with the State Bar resulted in a LONGER suspension (53 months) than had the attorney fought the OBC tooth and nail (which the Supreme Court stated was a 48 month suspension).
The very nature of precedent means that we are not guessing what goes on behind closed doors. We look at the cases and place them side by side and need to be able to determine not merely what triggers discipline but what the appropriate discipline should be.
You say that there are inconsistencies in any disciplinary process; is that OK to you? Should we as members of the Bar not want and work for a system that is fair? This entire discussion commenced with Leverty's assertion that members of the Bar are failing to accept responsibility. However perhaps the BoG, OBC and NSC should take responsibility for their actions is creating and perpetuating a decision which has engendered distrust and indicated that responsibility, compliance and cooperation are not only not recognized but can be deleterious to your professional health.
The Bar and the NSC could also give credit to attorneys who actually pay back any misappropriated moneys in full, otherwise there is no incentive to do so.