The Trump campaign is narrowing the scope of its lawsuit over Nevada’s expanded mail-in balloting. [TNI]
The Reno airport authority has told the Trump campaign its proposed rally this weekend in a hangar cannot proceed because it violates 50-person limit on gatherings. [TNI]
Multi-million dollar Las Vegas lawsuit targets mobile gaming app. [RJ]
Please, if you are litigating a promissory note, the word is not pronounced "Promise airy". You sound less educated than you want to sound when you say promissary constantly.
Chip handled his business old school. His wife was involved with some bad dudes and some bad stuff, and he wanted to keep his kids away from it.
If this were the old country he'd be remarried, with more kids,and tending his vineyard in retirement from all the bucks he made as a successful lawyer.
Such a waste.
Guest
Anonymous
September 9, 2020 5:38 pm
Reno Airport Authority would not dare say the same thing if it was an Antifa rally or BLM fest. Political hacks.
You really think the airport authority is keep on any hangar lessee inviting thousands of people out there? Politics aside, that's a liability nightmare. So while I can't say 10:38 is dead wrong (can't prove that negative), I would suspect you're wrong. If I'm their lawyer I'm telling them hell no we should not allow a lessee to have thousands of people out at one of the hangars. I don't care if it's a Mister Rogers impressionist convention.
The poker lawsuit is a joke. And shame on David Ferrara for being so lazy as to talk about "Las Vegas lawyer Maurice VerStandig." The guy does not even have an office in Las Vegas and certainly is not a "Las Vegas lawyer." More press release journalism from the Review Journal.
**Correction: Verstandig has a 2019 graduate listed in Nevada as his sole attorney with a UPS Store address in Henderson. Still not a "as Vegas lawyer."
This profession is so bad it males me miss 8th grade gym class.
Guest
Anonymous
September 9, 2020 6:04 pm
Is it possible for Steve Sisolak to hurt Nevada more than he has already? His fingerprints are all over the stadium "deal." He directed the pandemic shut down as a means to a political end. In 2 years, Clark County will be bankrupt, the state close behind, and Steve will be long gone. Are you dems happy now?
Even though there is certainly much that can be criticized about the governor's performance, it sounds like 11:04, rather than engaging in a fair attempt at objective analysis, is instead engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy: Sisolak is a democrat, 11:04 does not support or vote for democrats, so it became obvious that 11:04 will be unhappy with Sisolak no matter what Sisolak does.
This whole ok Gina thing or ok fill in the blank judge thing is so dumb. Take issue with facts in good faith or not. But god help us if Las Vegas lawyers are just this juvenile. Sad indictment of Nevada lawyers.
11:04 am here– DO NOT HIJACK MY SISOLAK IS A JERK THREAD WITH GINA NON-SEQUITUR BS!
Stay on topic. Sisolak ruined Nevada. Sisolak ruined Nevada. Sisolak ruined Nevada. "If this guy had a funeral home, no one would die. This turkey is totally brain dead!"
I'm curious what the answer to 12:03's question is too. What exactly is the political end that is served by Sisolak ordering the pandemic shut down?
OP said "he directed the pandemic shut down as a means to a political end. In 2 years, Clark County will be bankrupt, the state close behind, and Steve will be long gone." Are you saying Dems want to bankrupt the county and the state? Is that the political end? I thought Dems wanted the government to have all the money in the world so that thugs can have Obamaphones. Huh.
Once again, Obama and his cronies like Ilhan Omar (the brother marrying, immigrant fraudster, racist) have taken USA down a rung on the ladder. Sisolak is a wheel (albeit a dumb one) in the evil democrat machine. How long until "Maskman" Sisolak cancels Halloween, i.e., the mask wearing holiday?
Excuse me, but what exactly does this thread have to do with the law?
Guest
Anonymous
September 9, 2020 6:24 pm
Returning to a topic discussed heavily last week–the discipline proceedings against three judges. My take on each:
1. Potter. It involves material and communications, from a male judge to a female judge and female staff workers, deemed by them to be highly offensive and quite sexual in nature. Thus, if the facts are truly as alleged, I can certainly understand and appreciate why the Commission is proceeding with this matter(but let's not forget the judge will have already retired by the time the case is heard)
2. Judge Earley. The Commission is centering their case on specific, isolated instances where the judge was apparently loud, demeaning and used profanity, to support staff, as well as to two Chief Judges on separate occasions. Even if totally true, it seems like real over-reach for a commission, which should be concentrating on real acts of corruption, dishonesty and the like, to waste precious resources pursuing a judge for demeanor issues–and even more pointless when the judge will be long since retired by the time the proceedings are finalized. The Commission makes it clear that their purposes, in such situations, is not to be punitive but rather to educate and redirect the judge, then this is all utterly pointless as the judge will have voluntarily already have left the bench via retirement.
3. Judge Tobiasson. This complex, intricate, almost bizarre situation does raise legitimate ethical questions(as well as provides the basis for a really exciting Movie Of The Week) but the Commission fails to understand that they may need to tread quite a bit more lightly than they are as there are some huge built-in sympathy factors for the judge.
Even if they are able to establish that she did this or she did that, at the core is apparently a very legitimate and viable concern that her daughter, as well as other teenage girls, were in immediate and very real risk of being exploited and victimized by a teen prostitution ring. The desperate actions the judge apparently took when she felt she could not get help, and her rationality and decision-making appearing to become extremely compromised, are all the direct result of something that is very relatable and generates a great deal of sympathy. Most parents might well lose their objectivity and level-headedness, and resort to desperate measures(and even ultimately bat-shit measures) if they saw that their child was slipping away from them and was going to be exploited and terrorized by sleaze ball criminals, and the parent perceives that nowhere near the proper degree of law enforcement assistance is being generated.
If the panel is composed of real human beings and not cold automatons, I think she has a great shot of coming out of this without a suspension or other more serious discipline(but, yes, I concede much of her apparent behavior is eye-brow raising, particularly the more vigilante type of alleged behaviors, such as tracking down the supposed pimp and kicking his door in, etc.).
I believe that some of these matters (potter and Earley) are like getting Capone on tax evasion. It's not the only thing they have done and not the worst thing they have done, but it is what you can get them on.
Guest
Anonymous
September 9, 2020 6:38 pm
I posted my thoughts, but they were removed.
Guest
Anonymous
September 9, 2020 6:39 pm
11:24–as far as the Potter and Earley situations, even if a judge has decided not to run for re-election, or has been defeated for re-election, sometimes the Commission will still proceed because they wish to make sure that the person can never again serve as a judge, and that becomes part of the ultimate rulings.
That said, such concern probably only makes sense in the Potter situation as he is only abut 50 and may well have decided not to run for re-election due, in part, to the ethical proceedings(this one and the one he faced in 2017). So, it's possible someone in his situation could realistically attempt a judicial comeback in the future, and the Commission wants to protect against that.
But as for Ealey, the decision to not run for re-election seems to be more based on her approaching standard retirement age, than fear of repercussions for having raised her voice and used profanity.
As for Tobiassson, many of the behaviors, if proven, are very serious, and candidly, quite odd even allowing for the extreme stress she was under due to her daughter being in peril. I agree with 11:24 that her attorney should put the focus on the fact that she was acting to protect her daughter from a legitimate risk of harm, but, still, one can't go totally to Charlie Bronson territory even if family well-being and safety is at issue.
That all said, perhaps we would all be shocked to learn just how far we would each go had it been our child who some criminals were trying to turn into a junkie teen prostitute. Perhaps we'd learn just how aggressive and primitive we can be just below the surface façade.
It could also have a major impact on whether they can be in the sr judge program or not.
Guest
Anonymous
September 9, 2020 6:48 pm
I want to give Earley an award for telling Betsey Gonzalez off.
Guest
Anonymous
September 9, 2020 9:02 pm
Re: Potter – I had a hearing with him one time and after the parties would not agree, he screamed very loudly, with a red face, these exact words: "I will come to you house with a chain saw and cut your crap in half." Although I can certainly understand his frustration with divorce litigants, it was not professional to say the least.
2:02–That type of approach might even be understandable(albeit, as you say, quite unprofessional) if it is attorneys, rather than pro pers, who are arguing loudly about a bunch of used personalty (i.e. junk) that has far less combined re-sale value(in its used, heavily depreciated state) than the amount of attorney fees being paid.
There are cases where attorneys charged thousands of dollars filing and arguing a motion concerning personal property(like heavily used appliances and used furniture that was kind of cheap and tacky to begin with), wherein the attorney fees greatly exceed what this used crap could sell for.
Those attorneys may kind of deserve to be yelled at, or at least I kind of understand if it happens.
Now, I would never defend Potter(I've had some history with him as has 2:02), but I will say that if he cuts it all up with a chain saw that is at least fair, as long as he cuts exactly in the center so it's true 50/50 split.
Nobody deserves Potter. His behavior has been outrageous for years. Even in the 2017 order there was reference to a letter of caution. He knew and he didn't care. He got away with being an abusive bully for years…to attorneys and litigants.
If clients want to pay to fight over an old couch, it's their money and their choice. The state (i.e. Potter) doesn't get to threaten and harass them for it. The judge has an obligation to hear the controversies in front of the court, regardless of what that controversy is.
The comments equivocating between never defending Potter, but understanding his approach are just weak. He was out of line and always has been…bottom line. No good people on both sides here.
3:22 here. Let me clarify as I understand that I inartfully phrased matters wherein I condemned his approach, while in the next breath indicating that it is foolish for attorneys to bring motions of this sort and they do so at their own peril.
Potter's harsh and intemperate approach has brought his judicial career to a conclusion, and pretty soon attorneys will need not ever worry about him screaming at them again.
But that said there will continue to be motions where more is spent on attorney fees than the used property at issue is valued at, and some other judges(albeit not Potter) will justifiably lose their cool(although not nearly to the extent of Potter) and it may well be deserved.
So, I needed to do a better job of separating Potter(and his conduct) out as a separate concern from the concern of pointless yet expensive motion work.
Actually, I agree with both 10:50 and 12:46 on certain matters, so 10:50 may not be right that "there are no good people on both sides here."
10:50 is right that even if people are arguing about old junk that a judge has an obligation to calmly and respectfully hear the dispute and then rule.
But 12:46 is right that good lawyering requires a sense of proportion, and an evaluation of cost efficiency when picking fights.
So, I agree with 10:50 that people should not be yelled out for such a dispute, but 10:50 seems to believe that even if such silly, counter-productive and costly disputes appear before the court, that the court has no right to take a firm approach discouraging such foolish expenditure of fees. I agree the attorneys should not be yelled at in Potter-like fashion, but I expect a good judge to call a firm foul on this type of petty, b.s. litigating.
So, people should never be abused for fighting over the old couch, but attorneys should never pick such dispute in the first place. And if they do,a judge should be no-nonsense(but not abusive) about it.
Next time, rather than spending attorney fees fighting over these matters, they can instead come to my storage unit and cart away all the free worthless junk I have, including a couple old couches that might be comparable to the one they fought over.
Guest
Anonymous
September 9, 2020 10:34 pm
A few times on this blog there has been discussion about the struggles of transitioning to working from home. Does anyone feel the opposite, like they don't want to have to return to the office? For me, I'm loving the remote court appearances and it'll be a sad day when in-person hearings become routine again.
We aren't working remotely, so I can't speak to that experience unfortunately. Must be nice to skip that morning commute!
I'm hoping that BlueJeans and remote appearances remain an option, since they're just so much more convenient for all involved. Also, the emailing of orders to the court instead of sending a runner with hard copies for the judge's signature. These are all really great tech advances in a small period of time.
I'm the opposite. I miss going to the Court and seeing people and getting out of the office/home. Emailing the signatures and submitting things electronically is super nice, but I miss the in person appearances.
Fuckin right dude. Cruising down Summerlin Parkway with an ice cold Coke, good tunes and billing at $450 an hour. The American fuckin' dream right there brother!
Guest
Anonymous
September 11, 2020 5:14 pm
10:46–are you actually billing the $450. an hour while simultaneously cruising down Summerlin Parkway?
If so, what is the billing entry? Perhaps something like: "Reflecting on merits of client's case, or lack thereof, while in transit from office and being entertained by recorded music and ingesting a caffeinated, carbonated soft drink—0.5 hours."
Please, if you are litigating a promissory note, the word is not pronounced "Promise airy". You sound less educated than you want to sound when you say promissary constantly.
So, is it "promise" + "sorry"?
prom·is·so·ry
/ˈpräməˌsôrē/
My Lard, I can't believe people talk that way, like they're tending to their carn crop or something.
September 10, 2020 at 7:21 AM – Don't be impertinent my good fellow. Return to your labors and remember your station.
And that's spelled Laird, not Lard.
Where's my teacup?
Someone mentioned Chip Centofanti yesterday. Bless his heart, he is still trying to get out of prison: https://youtu.be/b2SWdlZNWCs
If nothing else, this shows how three-judge Federal appellate panels are getting it done these days.
Chip handled his business old school. His wife was involved with some bad dudes and some bad stuff, and he wanted to keep his kids away from it.
If this were the old country he'd be remarried, with more kids,and tending his vineyard in retirement from all the bucks he made as a successful lawyer.
Such a waste.
Reno Airport Authority would not dare say the same thing if it was an Antifa rally or BLM fest. Political hacks.
Bullshit. Stop making yourself sound stupid already.
Cue the trombones.
https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/trump-weekend-rallies-in-nevada-canceled-2114497/
10:42 sounds stupid.
You really think the airport authority is keep on any hangar lessee inviting thousands of people out there? Politics aside, that's a liability nightmare. So while I can't say 10:38 is dead wrong (can't prove that negative), I would suspect you're wrong. If I'm their lawyer I'm telling them hell no we should not allow a lessee to have thousands of people out at one of the hangars. I don't care if it's a Mister Rogers impressionist convention.
*keen
The poker lawsuit is a joke. And shame on David Ferrara for being so lazy as to talk about "Las Vegas lawyer Maurice VerStandig." The guy does not even have an office in Las Vegas and certainly is not a "Las Vegas lawyer." More press release journalism from the Review Journal.
**Correction: Verstandig has a 2019 graduate listed in Nevada as his sole attorney with a UPS Store address in Henderson. Still not a "as Vegas lawyer."
RJ folks do read this blog.
This profession is so bad it males me miss 8th grade gym class.
Is it possible for Steve Sisolak to hurt Nevada more than he has already? His fingerprints are all over the stadium "deal." He directed the pandemic shut down as a means to a political end. In 2 years, Clark County will be bankrupt, the state close behind, and Steve will be long gone. Are you dems happy now?
Steve and his cronies are also behind ballot question 1. Vote no on 1.
Thanks, Gina Bongiovi.
Even though there is certainly much that can be criticized about the governor's performance, it sounds like 11:04, rather than engaging in a fair attempt at objective analysis, is instead engaging in self-fulfilling prophecy: Sisolak is a democrat, 11:04 does not support or vote for democrats, so it became obvious that 11:04 will be unhappy with Sisolak no matter what Sisolak does.
What exactly is the political end that is served by Sisolak ordering the pandemic shut down?
This whole ok Gina thing or ok fill in the blank judge thing is so dumb. Take issue with facts in good faith or not. But god help us if Las Vegas lawyers are just this juvenile. Sad indictment of Nevada lawyers.
Isn't Gina Bongiovi the vote no on 1 spokes person?
11:04 am here– DO NOT HIJACK MY SISOLAK IS A JERK THREAD WITH GINA NON-SEQUITUR BS!
Stay on topic. Sisolak ruined Nevada. Sisolak ruined Nevada. Sisolak ruined Nevada. "If this guy had a funeral home, no one would die. This turkey is totally brain dead!"
Okay 11:04. What is your answer to 12:03's question?
There was nothing wrong with the above posts about above posts, Gina. Chill!
I'm curious what the answer to 12:03's question is too. What exactly is the political end that is served by Sisolak ordering the pandemic shut down?
OP said "he directed the pandemic shut down as a means to a political end. In 2 years, Clark County will be bankrupt, the state close behind, and Steve will be long gone." Are you saying Dems want to bankrupt the county and the state? Is that the political end? I thought Dems wanted the government to have all the money in the world so that thugs can have Obamaphones. Huh.
Does Trump know that Obamaphones are still being handed out?
Antifa uses Sorosphones.
Once again, Obama and his cronies like Ilhan Omar (the brother marrying, immigrant fraudster, racist) have taken USA down a rung on the ladder. Sisolak is a wheel (albeit a dumb one) in the evil democrat machine. How long until "Maskman" Sisolak cancels Halloween, i.e., the mask wearing holiday?
Yes Obama ruined the economy and really hurt things the last 4 years.
Excuse me, but what exactly does this thread have to do with the law?
Returning to a topic discussed heavily last week–the discipline proceedings against three judges. My take on each:
1. Potter. It involves material and communications, from a male judge to a female judge and female staff workers, deemed by them to be highly offensive and quite sexual in nature. Thus, if the facts are truly as alleged, I can certainly understand and appreciate why the Commission is proceeding with this matter(but let's not forget the judge will have already retired by the time the case is heard)
2. Judge Earley. The Commission is centering their case on specific, isolated instances where the judge was apparently loud, demeaning and used profanity, to support staff, as well as to two Chief Judges on separate occasions. Even if totally true, it seems like real over-reach for a commission, which should be concentrating on real acts of corruption, dishonesty and the like, to waste precious resources pursuing a judge for demeanor issues–and even more pointless when the judge will be long since retired by the time the proceedings are finalized. The Commission makes it clear that their purposes, in such situations, is not to be punitive but rather to educate and redirect the judge, then this is all utterly pointless as the judge will have voluntarily already have left the bench via retirement.
3. Judge Tobiasson. This complex, intricate, almost bizarre situation does raise legitimate ethical questions(as well as provides the basis for a really exciting Movie Of The Week) but the Commission fails to understand that they may need to tread quite a bit more lightly than they are as there are some huge built-in sympathy factors for the judge.
Even if they are able to establish that she did this or she did that, at the core is apparently a very legitimate and viable concern that her daughter, as well as other teenage girls, were in immediate and very real risk of being exploited and victimized by a teen prostitution ring. The desperate actions the judge apparently took when she felt she could not get help, and her rationality and decision-making appearing to become extremely compromised, are all the direct result of something that is very relatable and generates a great deal of sympathy. Most parents might well lose their objectivity and level-headedness, and resort to desperate measures(and even ultimately bat-shit measures) if they saw that their child was slipping away from them and was going to be exploited and terrorized by sleaze ball criminals, and the parent perceives that nowhere near the proper degree of law enforcement assistance is being generated.
If the panel is composed of real human beings and not cold automatons, I think she has a great shot of coming out of this without a suspension or other more serious discipline(but, yes, I concede much of her apparent behavior is eye-brow raising, particularly the more vigilante type of alleged behaviors, such as tracking down the supposed pimp and kicking his door in, etc.).
What do you guys think of these three cases?
I believe that some of these matters (potter and Earley) are like getting Capone on tax evasion. It's not the only thing they have done and not the worst thing they have done, but it is what you can get them on.
I posted my thoughts, but they were removed.
11:24–as far as the Potter and Earley situations, even if a judge has decided not to run for re-election, or has been defeated for re-election, sometimes the Commission will still proceed because they wish to make sure that the person can never again serve as a judge, and that becomes part of the ultimate rulings.
That said, such concern probably only makes sense in the Potter situation as he is only abut 50 and may well have decided not to run for re-election due, in part, to the ethical proceedings(this one and the one he faced in 2017). So, it's possible someone in his situation could realistically attempt a judicial comeback in the future, and the Commission wants to protect against that.
But as for Ealey, the decision to not run for re-election seems to be more based on her approaching standard retirement age, than fear of repercussions for having raised her voice and used profanity.
As for Tobiassson, many of the behaviors, if proven, are very serious, and candidly, quite odd even allowing for the extreme stress she was under due to her daughter being in peril. I agree with 11:24 that her attorney should put the focus on the fact that she was acting to protect her daughter from a legitimate risk of harm, but, still, one can't go totally to Charlie Bronson territory even if family well-being and safety is at issue.
That all said, perhaps we would all be shocked to learn just how far we would each go had it been our child who some criminals were trying to turn into a junkie teen prostitute. Perhaps we'd learn just how aggressive and primitive we can be just below the surface façade.
It could also have a major impact on whether they can be in the sr judge program or not.
I want to give Earley an award for telling Betsey Gonzalez off.
Re: Potter – I had a hearing with him one time and after the parties would not agree, he screamed very loudly, with a red face, these exact words: "I will come to you house with a chain saw and cut your crap in half." Although I can certainly understand his frustration with divorce litigants, it was not professional to say the least.
I've known him and his family for years. They are masters at living off the taxpayer teet.
Splitting the baby is supposed to be a metaphor, not a threat.
Chainsaw Solomon, Esq.
2:02–That type of approach might even be understandable(albeit, as you say, quite unprofessional) if it is attorneys, rather than pro pers, who are arguing loudly about a bunch of used personalty (i.e. junk) that has far less combined re-sale value(in its used, heavily depreciated state) than the amount of attorney fees being paid.
There are cases where attorneys charged thousands of dollars filing and arguing a motion concerning personal property(like heavily used appliances and used furniture that was kind of cheap and tacky to begin with), wherein the attorney fees greatly exceed what this used crap could sell for.
Those attorneys may kind of deserve to be yelled at, or at least I kind of understand if it happens.
Now, I would never defend Potter(I've had some history with him as has 2:02), but I will say that if he cuts it all up with a chain saw that is at least fair, as long as he cuts exactly in the center so it's true 50/50 split.
Nobody deserves Potter. His behavior has been outrageous for years. Even in the 2017 order there was reference to a letter of caution. He knew and he didn't care. He got away with being an abusive bully for years…to attorneys and litigants.
If clients want to pay to fight over an old couch, it's their money and their choice. The state (i.e. Potter) doesn't get to threaten and harass them for it. The judge has an obligation to hear the controversies in front of the court, regardless of what that controversy is.
The comments equivocating between never defending Potter, but understanding his approach are just weak. He was out of line and always has been…bottom line. No good people on both sides here.
3:22 here. Let me clarify as I understand that I inartfully phrased matters wherein I condemned his approach, while in the next breath indicating that it is foolish for attorneys to bring motions of this sort and they do so at their own peril.
Potter's harsh and intemperate approach has brought his judicial career to a conclusion, and pretty soon attorneys will need not ever worry about him screaming at them again.
But that said there will continue to be motions where more is spent on attorney fees than the used property at issue is valued at, and some other judges(albeit not Potter) will justifiably lose their cool(although not nearly to the extent of Potter) and it may well be deserved.
So, I needed to do a better job of separating Potter(and his conduct) out as a separate concern from the concern of pointless yet expensive motion work.
Actually, I agree with both 10:50 and 12:46 on certain matters, so 10:50 may not be right that "there are no good people on both sides here."
10:50 is right that even if people are arguing about old junk that a judge has an obligation to calmly and respectfully hear the dispute and then rule.
But 12:46 is right that good lawyering requires a sense of proportion, and an evaluation of cost efficiency when picking fights.
So, I agree with 10:50 that people should not be yelled out for such a dispute, but 10:50 seems to believe that even if such silly, counter-productive and costly disputes appear before the court, that the court has no right to take a firm approach discouraging such foolish expenditure of fees. I agree the attorneys should not be yelled at in Potter-like fashion, but I expect a good judge to call a firm foul on this type of petty, b.s. litigating.
So, people should never be abused for fighting over the old couch, but attorneys should never pick such dispute in the first place. And if they do,a judge should be no-nonsense(but not abusive) about it.
Next time, rather than spending attorney fees fighting over these matters, they can instead come to my storage unit and cart away all the free worthless junk I have, including a couple old couches that might be comparable to the one they fought over.
A few times on this blog there has been discussion about the struggles of transitioning to working from home. Does anyone feel the opposite, like they don't want to have to return to the office? For me, I'm loving the remote court appearances and it'll be a sad day when in-person hearings become routine again.
We aren't working remotely, so I can't speak to that experience unfortunately. Must be nice to skip that morning commute!
I'm hoping that BlueJeans and remote appearances remain an option, since they're just so much more convenient for all involved. Also, the emailing of orders to the court instead of sending a runner with hard copies for the judge's signature. These are all really great tech advances in a small period of time.
I never want to leave my house again.
I'm the opposite. I miss going to the Court and seeing people and getting out of the office/home. Emailing the signatures and submitting things electronically is super nice, but I miss the in person appearances.
I miss wandering the courthouse, too.
September 9, 2020 at 9:46 PM – ROTFLMAO!!!!!!
I miss billing for travel time.
Fuckin right dude. Cruising down Summerlin Parkway with an ice cold Coke, good tunes and billing at $450 an hour. The American fuckin' dream right there brother!
10:46–are you actually billing the $450. an hour while simultaneously cruising down Summerlin Parkway?
If so, what is the billing entry? Perhaps something like: "Reflecting on merits of client's case, or lack thereof, while in transit from office and being entertained by recorded music and ingesting a caffeinated, carbonated soft drink—0.5 hours."