- Quickdraw McLaw
- 35 Comments
- 99 Views
- The RJ just picked up on the fact that Abbi Silver is going to be a Supreme Court justice next year. [RJ]
- A disciplinary hearing is set for Judge Rena Hughes. [RJ]
- Meanwhile a ethics complaint was filed against a Washoe Family Court judge who made comments about a “woman’s place.” [RGJ]
- What else is going on out there today?
Nevada Supreme Court is taking up an ADKT this afternoon regarding substantially changing the rules on lawyer advertising.
Lets be honest– the ADKT system is simply a way for the Court to change the rules without material involvement by attorneys. Absent a grass roots discussion campaign, most of us never know that there are even rule changes proposed until it is too late.
Robert Walsh appointed to Justice Court 1
Is this the one that Momot was going for?
Who in the hell is Robert Walsh? Good pick. We would have been lucky to have Momot. I am going to throw confetti in my face to celebrate this state's continued stupidity.
The same person who endorses Elissa Cadish. John Momot was the best for the position.
Robert Walsh is like the newest Charlies Brown character who nobody knows the name of.
These comments are funny and true.
Momet withdrew his name from consideration.
Figler vs. Anom. I would have taken Figler.
First of all, the appointment is only until the end of the year, second of all, Robert Walsh has been a pro tem in Justice Court for the past 13 years. If you don't know who he is, you don't practice in Justice Court, and then it shouldn't matter to you that he got appointed.
Thank you, Robert.
Wow just be happy you got the appointment. No need to show a Napoleonic complex.
I am not necessarily the world's biggest Rob Walsh fan. But once Momot withdrew, that left Walsh and Figler.
Of the two in my view Walsh will be a bit more efficient, while Figler might tend to spend too much time discussing and over-analyzing on certain matters. That can slow things down.
So, IMO, it came down to two less than sterling choices, and perhaps the better choice was made.
Oh, a justice court pro tem. You are almost up there with dog catcher, chuckie.
Speaking of Chucky Cheese, is that what is on the menu for this one trick pony campaign dinners that are coming up?
Who said attorneys get a seat at the rule making table any more than any other member of the public receives.
Also impacted by whatever rules are adopted are advertising agencies, media companies, consultants, etc. Are they also entitled to special seats at the table by virtue of the decisions being adopted having an impact on their economic interests as well?
The ADKT process is most akin to the legislative process of a BDR. Someone with standing (a legislator or government agency in the case of a BDR and a member of the judiciary in the case of a ADKT) initiates the process with the filing of the BDR or ADKT. The process then involves the public in inviting their input (testifying in legislative hearings or public comment period for ADKT). The rule-making entity then adopt or reject the proposal and move on.. The affected parties do not get a direct vote on the proposal….
No one said anything about a direct vote on a proposal. The issue was that but for going to the Nevada Supreme Court website, one would not even know that the rules were proposed to be changed. So you discuss an invitation to public comment; however without notice that a proposal is to be considered there will not be (and usually is no) participation. The difference with a BDR is that there are stakeholders who are invited to testify on a proposal.
These are shitty-ass proposed rules. First they acknowledge that almost no other jurisdiction requires advance screening of ads, and that most complaints come from OBC or other lawyers, not clients or prospective clients. Then, they recommend expanding what needs to be preapproved. Facebook ads? Send it over. Fucking Google AdWords? Don't even think about doing it before the 11-panel convenes. Oh, and meanwhile, they're more than willing to let the leash of every ambulance-chasing shyster with the elimination of the requirement that even the barest hint of personal responsibility be mentioned. Fuck off, all of you, you bunch of kingdom-building ass-clowns.
I have to concur with 12:18pm. I for one get repeated emails from the SBN almost weekly about CLE's or about the annual bar meeting or doing more pro bono work, etc. However, when it comes to these proposed rules (which are pretty important to many of us) I don't hear squat out of them. Give me a break.
I also agree with 8:54pm's points as well.
I agree with 8:54pm as well.
Agree 100% with 9:41PM. The lack of meaningful notice from the Court on proposed new rules is calculated.
Even if you were trying to keep up with those changes, NSC opened the public comment period in early January-after the print deadline for the NV Lawyer-and closed it Jan 30, giving no-one enough time to react. Mike Lowry got a comment on time because, I suspect, he was connected to the Advertising committee.
Gets worse. The safe harbor provision is getting axed (since it was abused by a whole 1-2 attorney per year) AND you get to pay $100 per ad. Strictly to offset the costs associated with preapproval, of course. Gee. I wonder how 47 states can possibly manage their bars without using fees as prior restraint.
Dear NPR: Your sponsorships will be harder to sell to law firms now. You were specifically called out.
"WAKE UP NEVADA" I just saw the anti-Tarkanian commercial on TV…Comments?
Houston, this is commAnd center. We continue to have a problem.
Wynn out as CEO.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/steve-wynn-steps-down-as-chairman-and-ceo-of-wynn-resorts/
And Eglet has filed the shareholder derivative case already.
I must be missing something here. I thought the allegations were that he engaged in these acts during the time that he owned the Mirage and that the victims were employees of the Mirage. Additionally, that the 7.5M settlement of the paternity allegations was with his private funds, not Wynn funds.
If that is the true facts on the ground, how would the Wynn corporation (and shareholders) have a cause of action to pursue? The cause of action, if any, for events during the Mirage years belonged to his prior corporate entity which was sold to MGM years ago.
So, on the topic of lawyer advertising, I heard something recently about one specific big spender. This attorney often advertises that he has "never lost a jury trial", but according to what I heard, he has never actually won a jury trial either. This was pointed to as a prime example of misleading advertising. Can anyone confirm or deny this?
I weigh over 300 pounds, but I have never lost an Iron Man Triathlon!
Is that misleading? Sounds true.
All of this advertising about results has such a potential to mislead. I don't think it should be allowed at all. One of my bigger "wins" at trial was a case that I "lost" wherein the plaintiff failed, and miserably so, to beat an offset that I had from a settling co-defendant. So I "lost" but I "won." How do I work that into an advertisement in a non-misleading way that will also make sense to the general public? Or what if, as a plaintiff, I got a jury verdict for $800k where the offer of judgment was $1 million? Do I get to tout that as a "win" at trial?
He has lost at least one jury trial by anyone's standard. Straight up defense verdict.
Did he threaten appeal and settle? Did he score with the court reporter?
There's lots of reasons to try a case even if you don't have the facts. So I think the "never lost a case" thing is dumb as fuck. My eyeballs roll out of my skull when some prosecutor says they've never lost a case. Good work shaking down guys that were caught in the act, are facing a might-as-well-roll-the-dice sentence, and can't afford a lawyer.
Or the ones who put a gun to the head of the Defendant and coerce a plea deal because its Russian Roulette for Defendants and no risk for prosecutors.