- Quickdraw McLaw
- 60 Comments
- 148 Views
- The US Supreme Court is in action today. [SCOTUSblog]
- Suit says feds are using immigration marriage interviews as a trap. [Las Vegas Sun]
- Home prices in southern Nevada are nearing all-time highs. [Vegas Inc.]
- Parents says CCSD special needs students are routinely abused. [RJ; I-Team]
clarkcountycourts.us seems to be completely down this morning. How much do taxpayers and litigants pay for this again?
The main website is up, as is Odyssey File & Serve, but the EJDC Portal is down.
Not much.
And it's back.
The portal was intermittently down yesterday.
The article on home prices surprised me. It seems like prices have leveled off in the past year or so and even dipped a little. Maybe not.
Based on info from GLVAR, which is always out there spinning how awesome the real estate market it (sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't). I sell a lot of houses in probate and I can confirm that prices have dipped slightly.
Bar exam results today.
Wow. How many lawyers they gonna let in NV? Too many already. (on cell excuse wording)
Wow?
@ 10:33, curious to know how long you think they should suspend the bar exam.
"Wow." I think the poster was expressing wonderment that yet again another group is taking the Bar and will add to the flooded market that brings to mind the old joke that the town is not big enough for one lawyer but is big enough for two. I agree with the sentiment; however, there is not really anything that can be done except comment periodically.
11:00 We should suspended the current exam and replace it with the UBE
Wow–the pass rate of 57 per cent is so darn high. Oh my. Now they are going to let foreign law grads in to take the exam under functional equivalency. Saw that on the website. Crazy.
SBN should never have caved to Boyd – we were just fine when the bar exam was offered once per year. A state our size has no real need for a biannual bar exam.
And the SBN mantra that more lawyers creates greater "access to justice" is complete horseshit. More lawyers does nothing but water down the legal community and create more dues-paying members. That way the fuckheads at SBN can continue to increase their power.
Actually, too many lawyers decreases the quality of legal representation and demeans the profession. Look at the prolifieration of PI advertising. If you are doing any court work, you will see a parade of MVA cases with neck and back pain, 6 months of chiropractic care and NO damage to either vehicle. Same with other practices who are discounting fees to that BELOW Legal Zoom.
Hey @11:08
You must be nuts. The state bar still sets the cut-off, but because the UBE is a relatively easy exam, the number of Nevada takers will increase.
Yeah I cannot imagine tattling to a judge about something like this.
Anyone got early results?
Yes, and their first names are Justice.
With a quick scroll through, it looks like the number passing is a little north of 115.
There goes the neighborhood.
Off topic: What ever happened to Judge Pollack from Family Court? I remember him having a health challenge long ago. I like him as a person.
Status: JUDGE Inactive
After he lost his re-election in 2014, my understanding is that he intended to concentrate on his health and would not be seeking to re-commence practicing law, nor would he be attempting to mount a comeback to again get elected to the bench.
And, fortunately, it appeared that due to effective investments and money management that he was set up in such a manner that he would not need to return to the practice of law–at least not for the indefinite future.
He had no spouse or children and that helps lot. Obviously, in general a professional can save and invest a lot more when it is just them, and there is no family to worry about.
The report I heard is that his health has improved since he left the bench, and I trust and hope that such is the case.
If a judge loses re-election at a rather advanced age, they can gracefully glide into retirement. But those who are too young to retire either return to the practice of law, or try to carve out a career in alternate dispute resolution.
As for Judge Pollock, he was a relatively young guy, so usually people of that age, if they lose a re-election, return to practice or attempt alternate dispute resolution. But, as mentioned, due to his health challenges, plus having sufficient funds, he was in a positon not to return to practice.
When some former judges, following an election defeat, do return to practice, they often seem quite shocked when they are no longer treated with the deference and genuflecting that they believe they deserve and have grown accustomed to.
I've never understood why our Bar insists on releasing exam results in the middle of a week. What's wrong with waiting until a Friday to permit convenient celebrating and a measure of dignity for those who didn't pass?
You answered your own question when you indicate that it is currently set up to prevent too much enjoyment for those who pass, and to prevent those who fail from preserving a degree of dignity.
I appreciate the dry sarcasm of 1:15 but could that actually have some truth?
Do they not want to move it to Fridays, at least in part due to what the comment addresses?
Judge Bare recently initiated a contempt proceeding against attorney Brian Padgett for telling counsel to "go fuck yourself" at a recent hearing. According to the minute order, Judge Bare reviewed the video and confirmed that Padgett did say it despite denying making the comment when asked in open court. A755479
Minutes
10/04/2019 3:00 AM
– The Court hereby gives NOTICE to all parties of the following. On October 3, 2019, the parties came in for a hearing on Defendant Brian Padgett's Motion to Inspect Premises on Order Shortening Time. After the case was called, and on the record, Plaintiff's Counsel Mr. Stipp informed the Court that Mr. Padgett just told him to "go f*** myself." The Court asked Mr. Padgett if he indeed made this comment and Mr. Padgett denied making the comment. However, the Court reviewed the video recording of the October 3rd hearing in the early morning of October 4, 2019, and it is clear that, while in session and on the record, Mr. Padgett did in fact tell Mr. Stipp to "go f*** yourself." In addition, despite the Court's continuing patience with Mr. Padgett, Mr. Padgett engaged in a course of disrespectful and inappropriate conduct toward the Court during the course of the hearing. Because the Court has now verified the comment Mr. Padgett made to Mr. Stipp, and has taken into consideration Mr. Padgett s inappropriate conduct throughout the hearing, the Court finds as follows: The Court is hereby giving notice that it will procedurally initiate an indirect contempt proceeding against Mr. Padgett for his comment to Mr. Stipp on October 3, 2019, in open court while court was in session. Further, based upon what the Court feels is an unfortunate circumstance of having to pursue the indirect contempt proceeding, the Court believes that it is also appropriate for the Court to recuse itself from further proceedings in this matter, except for the indirect contempt proceeding. The Court believes that continuing to hear other matters presents, fairly, an appearance of impropriety pursuant to Canon 1 of the Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides that "A Judge shall uphold and promote the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." In addition, Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.11 provides the guidelines for recusal and/or disqualification, which states that a Judicial Officer of the Court "shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the Judge s impartiality might reasonably be questioned," including but not limited to situations where the Judge has personal bias, prejudice, or personal knowledge of the party or party's lawyer or case, or when the Judge or Judge's spouse or child has an economic interest in the subject matter, they should disqualify. Comment 1 provides that "a Judge is disqualified whenever the Judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, regardless of whether any of the specific provisions of paragraphs (A)(1) through (6) apply." Here, the fact the Court will now proceed with an indirect contempt proceeding against Mr. Padgett, the Court has reason to believe that there is adequate ground for the Court to recuse itself from further proceedings in this matter. Based upon these findings, the Court will reassign all pending hearings, except the indirect contempt proceedings to be initiated by this Court, to another Judicial Officer of the Court and any future hearings will be vacated from our calendar. . . . . .
We should assume that if we say something in court, that even if we don't know if all heard it, that the tech. equipment will pick it up.
So, rule is never deny what we did and what can probably be proven. Instead, so, so, sorry, I was real frustrated, it won't happen again, etc.
Otherwise the lie becomes much bigger than the comment. Sort of like situations where the cover up is far worse than the crime.
Having practiced in Family Court for many years, I thought "Go F*** Yourself" was mandatory after every hearing.
While I've never had opposing counsel say something similar to me in court, if it happened, I don't think I'd be tattling to the judge. One would think that an attorney would have a little thicker skin than that. And I absolutely agree with 2:03.
In Family Court it is not only mandatory to say it to the other attorney, but also to the judge each time you do not prevail, or each time your client wrongly perceives they did not prevail, even if they in fact did.
The theory, I assume, is that, in addition to venting frustration, the client will think their attorney is a real bad ass fighter and will pay the bill and refer other paying clients.
Case A755479 has gone full Kenny Powers. The entire thing is a shit show.
2:48 is absolutely correct!!
There are plenty of attorneys who should be told to go fucker themselves. Now Rob Bare is OBC? Supreme court gotta live this.
Well technically Rob Bare WAS OBC so this is presumably the wrong Judge to challenge the NRPCs in front of.
I've been in front of Judge Bare only a few times, but I was always impressed. He was always prepared and was a great listener. He seems very patient and relaxed. You'd really have to go extreme to rile him up, based upon my limited interactions with him.
I hear he is hell to work for
What about him makes him Hell to work for?
I know a lot of people who have worked for him when he was at the State Bar and also at District Court. Everyone I know always seemed happy with their job while working with/for him and spoke highly of him.
5:16 here,I hear he is a bully.
This is such bullshit. If the tattler were a female attorney everyone, including Judge Bare, would dismiss it immediately as an expression of frustration only (and blame her for having such thin skin). Which leads me to conclude that the situation is being wholly overblown because the judge has a bias against Padgett based on something else, not this statement directed to opposing counsel and having nothing to do with the judge himself or the judge's courtroom. And for all I know, the judge has good reason not to like Padgett (don't know the guy), but to peg this action on this statement is pretty disingenuous.
Judge Bare has been MORE than patient and fair with this man. He is the reason why attorneys get a bad rap. Check out briancpadgett.net
Nothing like having a slander site dedicated to you.
Wasn't there another attack site put together by this Barket fellow posted here recently? Didn't it somehow involve attacking someone associated with Padgett? I wonder if there is some kind of connection.
61% pass rate
Too high!
Well, you want your constitutional crisis? You got it.
I just read entire letter, it's just a few pages, idk maybe I'm weak minded, but it sounded great to me, where is the crisis? Isn't that how it's supposed to work? House doesn't follow laws, Executive says so and shows country the letter, what's problem?
What law are you referencing?
Assuming 3:39 is referring to Wilkinson v. United States, 365 U.S. 399 (1961), which sets out 3 requirements for Congressional subpoena to be enforceable via contempt. The first requirement is that the investigation has to be authorized by its chamber. Trump is taking the position that the House hasn't authorized an impeachment inquiry, because that's totally the position a purely innocent person takes.
I despise Trump. However to be fair, if you were hit with a subpoena that you wished to contest or obtain a protective order, wouldn't or don't you assert every possible objection and defense that you could? On a legal level, it makes sense. On a political level, it makes sense.
It should be noted Wilkinson v. United States arose out of a criminal contempt conviction in court under 2 U.S.C. 192. It's of dubious applicability if one House of Congress should invoke its constitutional inherent contempt powers.
What 12:28 said. You really think SCOTUS is going to say the House has sole power of impeachment but then say the House didn't follow this 60 year old case that isn't exactly on point and therefore you can't investigate whether to impeach? I suppose I get making the argument, but I'm not sold.
Does the title of the blog refer to what Michael Jackson did to his monkey?
I wish you (those to whom this pertains) an easy fast. May you be inscribed in the Book of Life for a good year!
Yom Tov to all our Jewish friends in the legal community. The strong Jewish community is one of the things that makes Las Vegas a great city, at least in the mind of this gentile.