- Quickdraw McLaw
- 21 Comments
- 270 Views
- Bill Cosby was found guilty yesterday. [NY Times]
- A Metro officer was demoted for failing to stop a chokehold death. [RJ]
- Today’s the last day to nominate someone for the Bar Board of Governors.
But Not Dr. Huxtable
- Law
- Posted on 7 years ago
Is anyone going to nominate anyone for the BOG who is opposed to the random audits and other areas of concern? Is anyone going to actually nominate someone who can fight for us little people and solo practitioners and the like?
The answer is a resounding "no." Instead the same incumbents, or juiced-in system people, will continue to be elected over and over, and then when they are unresponsive to out needs, or advocate for policies which are onerous on many of its members, we will act shocked at the leadership we have, and will continue to bitch (anonymously)about the BOG.
lets nominate one of the people who submitted comments to the Supreme Court. I'm willing to nominate one of them…suggestions?
I have submitted my nomination form already, as has Andrew Craner. We are both against the random audits and (I believe) in favor of more transparency. I am an owner of a two-person firm and I can see exactly how big of an impact the random audits could have. I also believe the BOG needs to be more accountable to its members through increased transparency. I'm still formulating some ideas on how to make that happen and what it would look like. If you have ideas or suggestions, I'm certainly willing to listen.
I will be voting for Jessica.
You have my vote.
I have never voted for BOG in my career. I will absolutely vote this time. I will vote for any candidate who pushes back against random audits and the nonsense at OBC. If no candidate speaks out on those issues, I will vote for challengers against incumbents by default.
I submitted my nomination too and am against the random audits and for more transparency.
Jessica
Re: "I also believe the BOG needs to be more accountable to its members through increased transparency. I'm still formulating some ideas on how to make that happen and what it would look like. If you have ideas or suggestions, I'm certainly willing to listen."
Terrific start: transparency and accountability.
Suggestions:
(1) Require that all BOG meeting minutes be published monthly in Nevada Lawyer magazine, including mandatory disclosure of all votes cast by each board member on substantive matters impacting the practice of law in Nevada, e.g., the random audit rule petition, mandatory malpractice insurance, etc.
(2) On or before December 31 of each year that mandatory bar dues are collected, require the bar to make available to the public a list of the expenditures made with mandatory bar dues and provide for an independent audit of those expenditures to ensure that consistent with Keller v. State Bar of California that all expenditures were in furtherance of germane regulatory functions and not non-regulatory bar functions.
(3) Support passage of a rule requiring the bar to be subject to Nevada Public Records Law.
(4) Require annual disclosure of salary and total compensation paid to bar executive management.
(5) Require the bar to timely notify all members via blast email newsletter and through Nevada Lawyer magazine about any proposed and pending rule change petitions affecting professional conduct rules; licensing fees; member fines and penalties and any relevant rule changes impacting the practice of law in Nevada.
(6) Consistent with open meeting law, require the BOG to post meeting agendas in advance and allow public comment at board meetings.
(7) Require annual independently audited financial statements disclosing all functional expense lines in detail. (Don't we want to know in detail, for example, the cost of the annual out-of-state bar convention, including who is attending via all-expense paid and/or expense-subsidized member mandatory bar dues?)
@3:39 – you should put your name in. All great suggestions!
I completely support Jessica's & Casey's candidacies and agree with 3:39's suggestions.
lets nominate one of the people who submitted comments to the Supreme Court. I'm willing to nominate one of them…suggestions?
How about this: lets nominate one of the people who submitted comments to the Supreme Court. I'm willing to nominate one of them…suggestions?
I'm down with this, but with one small tweak: lets nominate one of the people who submitted comments to the Supreme Court. I'm willing to nominate one of them…suggestions?
Okay. We get it. Humorous that the same post is made four times, etc.
But that all being said, who are these people who submitted comments to the NSC and why does the submission of comments, in and of itself, establish that they would be fearless crusaders for the rights of those in small, or solo, practices?
Perhaps some of the written comments to the NSC were along the lines of "keep up the good work, and adopt a hands-off policy when the BOG attempts to crush the small practitioners with random audits, that they need to finance themselves, along with other draconian measures."
Random audits are bad enough, but making the audited person pay for it, even if no irregularities are found, is ludicrous beyond measure–not just grossly unfair, but comically unfair.
I'm trying to think of a reasonable analogy to demonstrate just how absurd it is. Let's say that during a holiday there is a DUI check point, and they stop every tenth vehicle. None of those they stopped have been drinking, but they are informed that since DUI accidents take such a profound toll on society(human suffering toll, financial toll, etc.) that each randomly stopped person, including all those who have not been drinking(as well as those who never even tasted alcohol in their entire life) will tender $10,000. to help address problems occasioned by DUI accidents.
I know that sounds absurd on its face, but I think it is a fair analogy and parallels quite well with what is occurring. And despite the fact it analogizes and parallels quite well, if anyone dismisses it as "extreme" because the sober drivers were each fined $10,0000., then we can reduce it to $1,000. That seems fair since each random audit could cost at least $1,000.–and many will cost a lot more.
I think the analogy is fair. And although it is presumed most of the audits will not cost $10,000., since you adjusted your analogy to a $1,000. fine, that is quite realistic because most of the audits will probably easily exceed $1,000.
The CPAs will probably charge at least a couple hundred, or more, per hour, and will claim that even the smallest audit of a solo practitioner with limited business, will take at least several hours.
Actually, now that I think of it, the average audit bill presented will probably be closer to that $10,000.figure you first used, rather than the $1,000. figure you adjusted it to. After all, when was the last time someone audited a law practice(any law practice–even the smallest one, or any other business for that matter) and claimed they got the job completed in one afternoon?
I wouldn't be surprised in most audits are not completed in one day.
And yet how many attorneys will bitch over the next two years? Losers. NOMINATE YOURSELVES. CLOCK'S TICKING.
Now, has anyone considered that Ben may somehow be related to Glory?
Marry me.
I nominate Jordan Ross.
ROTFLMAO!