If all you know about Boulder City is from this blog, you must be getting some pretty interesting ideas about our neighbor to the southeast. They’re in the news again–this time because their city officials are costing taxpayers more legal fees by dragging out a protracted court battle they’ve already lost. Back in 2010, the City Council directed City Attorney, Dave Olsen, to go to court seeking clarification on ballot initiatives (which had passed) limiting the power of the Council. At least that is one side of the story since this process involved the City naming six individuals who had brought the initiatives. (You can read a more detailed account here.) Ultimately, this went all the way to the Supreme Court where Boulder City lost. Now, the City has incurred over $220,000 in attorney’s fees (they used Lionel Sawyer & Collins) and has been ordered to pay $180,000 in attorney’s fees to the other parties (who were represented by former City Councilwoman Linda Strickland and her husband Tracy Strickland–the Stricklands who have previously gone to battle against Stephen Stubbs). Boulder City recently challenged the attorney’s fees (now they’re represented by Steve Morris) and lost with the judge awarding another $10,000 in fees. [8NewsNow I-Team)
In addition to all that, you might recall a story about Boulder City’s City Attorney Dave Olsen. We mentioned him back in May when it came to light that he had decided to be an expert witness for his son in a civil suit his son brought against the City. Former Boulder City Police Chief Tom Finn (who was ousted a year ago, but was still recently in the news voicing his opinion) filed a formal ethics complaint about Olsen. This week Olsen agreed to one willful violation and is facing a fine of $1500. No word on whether a complaint was filed with the State Bar–but shouldn’t they be involved too? [8NewsNow]
In case all of the above was starting to make you think Las Vegas is pretty normal, don’t worry, next week we’ll begin our look at the judicial races for the upcoming election and you’ll be reminded how truly special you are too!
What really needs to happen won't happen. Boyd should be closed and the taxpayer money spent on it should be returned to the taxpayers. At the very least, the saved money should be used to retire some of the State's debts. There's really no need for Boyd in the Nevada legal community. Boyd exists primarily to line the pockets of a few self-important academics and administrators.
All of that said, even with the tuition hike, Boyd will remain one of the lower cost options in the region for a generic, run-of-the-mill JD. The second- and third-tier private law schools in California, Oregon, and Washington will all still be more expensive than Boyd. Hopefully, those JD factories will retrench as applications continue to decline. What we're starting to see now is a long-overdue market correction.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2014 5:15 pm
"the City has incurred over $220,000 in attorney's fees (they used Lionel Sawyer & Collins)"
The only shocking part about this statement is that it looks like LS&C probably gave them a 50% discount off their normal rate.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2014 5:30 pm
I think your statement is at least slightly contradictory. What would be a better situations is if all the more expensive 2nd and 3rd tier schools shut down first. There's nothing wrong with having one decent (top 80 isn't bad for a 15 yr old school) law school in a state with a population of 3 million. It's true that there are other options (mostly more expensive) in Utah, Arizona or California. But a lot of people don't want to leave the state to go to law school.
What Boyd should probably do is cut it's budget before increasing tuition, but that's just me speaking as an armchair quarterback.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2014 6:04 pm
@ 10:10 AM — I'm befuddled. So basically you want to shut down higher education in Nevada because there are schools in surrounding states teaching the same thing? Wow, just wow. Can we stop calling for the closure of schools in Nevada, and instead make schools available in this state for Nevada's children.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2014 6:24 pm
11:04- law school is not for children. It's not in the best interest of the children or the state to encourage reckless spending on a mediocre law school. Yes, Boyd serves a purpose, but that doesn't make it necessary. Why with a $3 million budget shortfall are they adding an LLM program in gaming? LLMs are usually 1 year programs that will make some profit, but again, don't really offer much to the graduate in the long term.
Guest
Anonymous
September 12, 2014 6:42 pm
Why are we talking about eliminating Boyd when it's clear the best option is to eliminate Boulder City?
Guest
Anonymous
September 13, 2014 2:39 am
Just to correct the record , the Stricklands never lost to Stubbs. In fact the Stricklands won , Stubbs appealed, and the Stricklands won on appeal. Then again , beating Stubbs is not saying much. But beating LSC, when LSC 'a last brief filed was signed by retired Justice Maupin, was a feat.
Guest
Anonymous
October 14, 2014 9:38 pm
A complaint was filed with the Nevada Bar at the same time the Ethics Commission complaint was filed. No resolution yet….
What really needs to happen won't happen. Boyd should be closed and the taxpayer money spent on it should be returned to the taxpayers. At the very least, the saved money should be used to retire some of the State's debts. There's really no need for Boyd in the Nevada legal community. Boyd exists primarily to line the pockets of a few self-important academics and administrators.
All of that said, even with the tuition hike, Boyd will remain one of the lower cost options in the region for a generic, run-of-the-mill JD. The second- and third-tier private law schools in California, Oregon, and Washington will all still be more expensive than Boyd. Hopefully, those JD factories will retrench as applications continue to decline. What we're starting to see now is a long-overdue market correction.
"the City has incurred over $220,000 in attorney's fees (they used Lionel Sawyer & Collins)"
The only shocking part about this statement is that it looks like LS&C probably gave them a 50% discount off their normal rate.
I think your statement is at least slightly contradictory. What would be a better situations is if all the more expensive 2nd and 3rd tier schools shut down first. There's nothing wrong with having one decent (top 80 isn't bad for a 15 yr old school) law school in a state with a population of 3 million. It's true that there are other options (mostly more expensive) in Utah, Arizona or California. But a lot of people don't want to leave the state to go to law school.
What Boyd should probably do is cut it's budget before increasing tuition, but that's just me speaking as an armchair quarterback.
@ 10:10 AM — I'm befuddled. So basically you want to shut down higher education in Nevada because there are schools in surrounding states teaching the same thing? Wow, just wow. Can we stop calling for the closure of schools in Nevada, and instead make schools available in this state for Nevada's children.
11:04- law school is not for children. It's not in the best interest of the children or the state to encourage reckless spending on a mediocre law school. Yes, Boyd serves a purpose, but that doesn't make it necessary. Why with a $3 million budget shortfall are they adding an LLM program in gaming? LLMs are usually 1 year programs that will make some profit, but again, don't really offer much to the graduate in the long term.
Why are we talking about eliminating Boyd when it's clear the best option is to eliminate Boulder City?
Just to correct the record , the Stricklands never lost to Stubbs. In fact the Stricklands won , Stubbs appealed, and the Stricklands won on appeal. Then again , beating Stubbs is not saying much. But beating LSC, when LSC 'a last brief filed was signed by retired Justice Maupin, was a feat.
A complaint was filed with the Nevada Bar at the same time the Ethics Commission complaint was filed. No resolution yet….