Alito "beat them to the punch" by declining to speak with ProPublica. The WSJ was happy to have its platform used to pre-empt the fallout to a conservative Justice. As a Justice, Alito has shown a dark and competitive nature that does not lend itself to reasonable positions or self-reflection. Yes, liberal Justices have taken some flights too – and although they pale in comparison to what Alito, Thomas and the boys are up to, I believe most of them are acting inappropriately – they would certainly be sanctioned for ethics violations in most other forms of government or judicial systems. There needs to be some ethics enforcement for SCOTUS. Things have run amuck.
We are used to some level of corruption there. I'm sure there have always been some iffy components to SCOTUS, but for the most part I just hold them to a higher standard. You can't vote out lifetime appointments.
I sit occasionally as a pro tem, and I am subject to the same ethical rules as a Justice of the Peace or a District Judge. There is no reason why the United States Supreme Court should be subject to a lesser ethical standard than I am. But, Article III, lifetime appointment, yadda yadda. You can't really enforce any of these rules other than through impeachment, which has never happened to a Supreme Court Justice in modern times (and maybe not at all; I didn't take the time to check), and only a handful of times with a District Judge in recent decades, e.g. Claiborne. So I don't know that there is a realistic solution.
I think the suggestion is that it's not good when judges are gifted free rides on private jets from people with business in front of them, especially if the judge refuses to disclose the gifts.
Imagine if this was an Eighth JD business-court judge or something. Would you really be out here saying "this is fine"?
The recent attacks on the "conservative" Justices with sparse evidence of any impropriety are completely partisan and intended to destabilize and delegitimize SCOTUS. That's the point.
9:19,
Bruh. The impropriety is plain. We should expect the nation's highest court to conduct themselves in a fashion that reduces the suggestion of impropriety. That means not accepting gifts from people whose interests may come before you. IDGAF if they're friends you became close to during the confirmation process or lifelong drinking buddies. You don't take gifts. You don't let someone else pay your way. You don't let someone pay the way of your family. You don't sell property at greater than fair market value to someone whose interests you may be called upon to affect.
This ain't that hard, but certain members of the court seem bound and determined to get the grifts they can while telling innocent people to go to hell.
The recent criticisms of Justice Thomas have lots of evidence of impropriety. He shouldn't be just taking money from some megadonor, c'mon, that's easy. It would be 24/7/365 on Fox News if Justice Jackson was receiving the same gifts/benefits/house purchase from George Soros, right?
The Sotomayor stuff is bad too, seems she should have recused like Breyer did. Although it's somewhat distinguishable because it was a vote on granting cert, not a vote on an opinion, it's not good.
Stepping back – these are Supreme Court Justices. We SHOULD hold them to a higher standard than the local district judge or justice of the peace.
To your last point – SCOTUS itself is responsible for a lot of the legitimacy arguments. If I beat my wife, and someone reports it, I don't get to complain they're destabilizing my relationship.
Again – not a partisan issue. Let's have a code of ethics for all of them!
9:35am – what exactly did Justice Thomas do wrong? He had a billionaire friend who helped Thomas' nephew–whom he raised out of the kindness of his heart–to go to college? All that does is make me like Justice Thomas even more!
Remember the brown suit? Yeah, that is what is wrong here.
Guest
Anonymous
June 22, 2023 11:35 pm
Question for my friends…
I, an attorney, have just been subpoenaed to testify as a fact witness. Even though I've been practicing for more than a decade, I've never actually been deposed before. Do I have the right to bill for my time like an expert would? If I brought my own counsel, could I charge for their time?
4:35 PM–Attorney-Subpoenaed as fact witness. What did you observe or know. Car accident case? Incident? Did you give a recorded statement?
One thing you can do is to not comply with the subpoena, not appear and see if they seek a court order. Sometimes the attorneys give up because it is an extra step. A subpoena is issued by the attorney or party and is not a court order. You can ask to be excused. It depends on what information they are trying to derive. Does this involved attorney client relationship/work product. If so you can resist, object and seek protective order. A hassle. If you are just a fact witness and it is by zoom you can schedule on your lunch hour or outside your work day. Doctors do it all the time.
I played this game when I did not want to testify as a percipient witness. I spent more time that equalled money dodging the subpoena than I spent testifying once they finally got me. Seriously we do this for a living. We have very little room to bitch (and I understand the hypocrisy based on what I said in the beginning) when people have no respect for our subpoenas and the legal process because we as practitioners have very little respect for the process.
I was deposed by a former client (they went pro se after firing me) and I testified at trial once as a fact witness in a case I was an attorney on.
Neither was a fun experience. But it's not the end of the world. However, just like we tell our clients, listen to the question, think about your answer, and tell the truth.
Silver lining – now you'll be able to tell your clients you know what they're going through when they have to be deposed. And you'll have the experience of being on the other side of it.
If you don't have any potential exposure/liability, get a friend to come represent you for the deposition and buy them lunch afterwards.
OP (4:35) here. Thanks for all the comments everyone. I don't plan on dodging the subpoena. I don't have a dog in the fight, and as 8:56 said, it would waste more of my time in the long run. I am curious if the non-subpoenaing party will object, though.
I looked at NRS 50.255 and it says that I wouldn't be able to get a witness fee in a case where I am an attorney. I don't think that's technically the case here, but it's close enough that I probably wouldn't push it.
Finally, I like 9:40's thought that this will now let me say that I have been deposed. Just like I once served on a jury (before law school), I think it's great to be on the other side of things.
@9:52am – unless I'm misreading NRS 50.255, it doesn't say you can't get a witness fee in a case where you are the attorney, or were the attorney, on the case. It says attorneys are not allowed witness fees "in any case". I read that as it says "in any case" including cases both where you were an attorney and where you were not an attorney in the case.
11:11 is correct. You cannot be compensated as a witness in a case where you have represented a party. However, if you're merely a fact witness (i.e. witnessed a car crash) you are entitled to the witness fee.
1016. . .The statute says different. Is there a case that interprets to your position?
NRS 50.255 Attorney not allowed fee as witness. No attorney or counselor at law, in any case, shall be allowed any fees for attending as a witness in such case.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 793)
10:40: The language is clear on its face. "In any case" refers to a case where a person is an "attorney or counselor at law " "in such case". If it meant that an attorney could never receive a witness fee in any circumstance (which is in itself nonsensical) the modifier "in such case" would be completely superfluous.
Changing the sentence is not "rediagramming" it. It clearly says that an attorney in a case can't get witness fees in that case. What would be the policy reason for excluding attorneys from receiving witnesses fees in a case where their only involvement is as a percipient witness? There is none.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2023 1:57 pm
Next year's state bar conference will be in New Mexico
It's obscene that a single penny of bar dues goes to these out of state vacations for board members. This year was in NEW YORK, who can afford the time?
Or someplace that we can get to easily, like San Diego. Six hours by car or an hour by air, and everybody loves SD. Of course, though, they'd book the Hotel del Coronado and thereby price us all out.
New to practicing in this jurisdiction… every aspect of every single decision I've seen the SBN make has been literally nonsensical. What the hell is going on
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2023 4:39 pm
Heard from a candidate who didn’t get the nod that Ganz will be the next Discovery Commissioner
I think you must be out of your mind to want to be a judge, and wanting to be DC doesn't even register as human behavior.
Guest
Anonymous
June 23, 2023 5:20 pm
I don’t care what the line is, I’m taking Musk over Zuckerberg. Yes this is related to law because Musk owns Twitter and that’s where I get me legal news … ok it’s not related to law …
I’ve never posted first before – maybe I am special – maybe today IS my day!
You do not win the internet today.
Narrator: It was, in fact, his day.
For Boyd 2013s, every day is their day.
In Morgan Freeman’s voice: “9:16 hoped the ocean would be as blue as it was in his dreams.”
"And yet it turned out to be as deep as his despair."
12:42 a lawyer and movie buff, a double threat!!
@ Mods. Please TTHHWWAACCKK @9:16's comment. Today is NOT his day.
Hahaha nooooooo!
Alito "beat them to the punch" by declining to speak with ProPublica. The WSJ was happy to have its platform used to pre-empt the fallout to a conservative Justice. As a Justice, Alito has shown a dark and competitive nature that does not lend itself to reasonable positions or self-reflection. Yes, liberal Justices have taken some flights too – and although they pale in comparison to what Alito, Thomas and the boys are up to, I believe most of them are acting inappropriately – they would certainly be sanctioned for ethics violations in most other forms of government or judicial systems. There needs to be some ethics enforcement for SCOTUS. Things have run amuck.
Let's let the politicians in the House and Senate lead by example.
We are used to some level of corruption there. I'm sure there have always been some iffy components to SCOTUS, but for the most part I just hold them to a higher standard. You can't vote out lifetime appointments.
Well put 12:09, thank you
I sit occasionally as a pro tem, and I am subject to the same ethical rules as a Justice of the Peace or a District Judge. There is no reason why the United States Supreme Court should be subject to a lesser ethical standard than I am. But, Article III, lifetime appointment, yadda yadda. You can't really enforce any of these rules other than through impeachment, which has never happened to a Supreme Court Justice in modern times (and maybe not at all; I didn't take the time to check), and only a handful of times with a District Judge in recent decades, e.g. Claiborne. So I don't know that there is a realistic solution.
Here is a fine explanation of why “ethics enforcement for SCOTUS” isn’t gonna work:
https://blog.simplejustice.us/2023/06/12/chemerinsky-shoots-blanks-at-scotus/
What's the suggestion? SCOTUS justice can't have friends over a certain net worth?
I think the suggestion is that it's not good when judges are gifted free rides on private jets from people with business in front of them, especially if the judge refuses to disclose the gifts.
Imagine if this was an Eighth JD business-court judge or something. Would you really be out here saying "this is fine"?
Where is your offer of proof that he even knew? The Corporate Disclosure statements in the appeals in question revealed no potential conflicts.
While you spend your time on events from 2008, here a recent one that puts the allegation against Alito to shame (that you'll surely ignore and explain away bc the justices in question are on your side):
https://nypost.com/2023/05/04/supreme-court-justice-sonia-sotomayor-didnt-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-book-publisher-that-paid-her-3m-report/amp/
9:07 – that just sounds like even more of a reason to have ethics rules for SCOTUS!
This shouldn't be a partisan issue.
The recent attacks on the "conservative" Justices with sparse evidence of any impropriety are completely partisan and intended to destabilize and delegitimize SCOTUS. That's the point.
9:19,
Bruh. The impropriety is plain. We should expect the nation's highest court to conduct themselves in a fashion that reduces the suggestion of impropriety. That means not accepting gifts from people whose interests may come before you. IDGAF if they're friends you became close to during the confirmation process or lifelong drinking buddies. You don't take gifts. You don't let someone else pay your way. You don't let someone pay the way of your family. You don't sell property at greater than fair market value to someone whose interests you may be called upon to affect.
This ain't that hard, but certain members of the court seem bound and determined to get the grifts they can while telling innocent people to go to hell.
The recent criticisms of Justice Thomas have lots of evidence of impropriety. He shouldn't be just taking money from some megadonor, c'mon, that's easy. It would be 24/7/365 on Fox News if Justice Jackson was receiving the same gifts/benefits/house purchase from George Soros, right?
The Sotomayor stuff is bad too, seems she should have recused like Breyer did. Although it's somewhat distinguishable because it was a vote on granting cert, not a vote on an opinion, it's not good.
Stepping back – these are Supreme Court Justices. We SHOULD hold them to a higher standard than the local district judge or justice of the peace.
To your last point – SCOTUS itself is responsible for a lot of the legitimacy arguments. If I beat my wife, and someone reports it, I don't get to complain they're destabilizing my relationship.
Again – not a partisan issue. Let's have a code of ethics for all of them!
9:35am – what exactly did Justice Thomas do wrong? He had a billionaire friend who helped Thomas' nephew–whom he raised out of the kindness of his heart–to go to college? All that does is make me like Justice Thomas even more!
Remember the brown suit? Yeah, that is what is wrong here.
Question for my friends…
I, an attorney, have just been subpoenaed to testify as a fact witness. Even though I've been practicing for more than a decade, I've never actually been deposed before. Do I have the right to bill for my time like an expert would? If I brought my own counsel, could I charge for their time?
No and no. Sucks.
Can’t even get the witness fee
I think you, as a fact witness, are entitled to a witness fee. But not to expert witness fees and no $$ for your attorney.
Why the hell can't he get a witness fee?
NRS 50.255
4:35 PM–Attorney-Subpoenaed as fact witness. What did you observe or know. Car accident case? Incident? Did you give a recorded statement?
One thing you can do is to not comply with the subpoena, not appear and see if they seek a court order. Sometimes the attorneys give up because it is an extra step. A subpoena is issued by the attorney or party and is not a court order. You can ask to be excused. It depends on what information they are trying to derive. Does this involved attorney client relationship/work product. If so you can resist, object and seek protective order. A hassle. If you are just a fact witness and it is by zoom you can schedule on your lunch hour or outside your work day. Doctors do it all the time.
I played this game when I did not want to testify as a percipient witness. I spent more time that equalled money dodging the subpoena than I spent testifying once they finally got me. Seriously we do this for a living. We have very little room to bitch (and I understand the hypocrisy based on what I said in the beginning) when people have no respect for our subpoenas and the legal process because we as practitioners have very little respect for the process.
I was deposed by a former client (they went pro se after firing me) and I testified at trial once as a fact witness in a case I was an attorney on.
Neither was a fun experience. But it's not the end of the world. However, just like we tell our clients, listen to the question, think about your answer, and tell the truth.
Silver lining – now you'll be able to tell your clients you know what they're going through when they have to be deposed. And you'll have the experience of being on the other side of it.
If you don't have any potential exposure/liability, get a friend to come represent you for the deposition and buy them lunch afterwards.
OP (4:35) here. Thanks for all the comments everyone. I don't plan on dodging the subpoena. I don't have a dog in the fight, and as 8:56 said, it would waste more of my time in the long run. I am curious if the non-subpoenaing party will object, though.
I looked at NRS 50.255 and it says that I wouldn't be able to get a witness fee in a case where I am an attorney. I don't think that's technically the case here, but it's close enough that I probably wouldn't push it.
Finally, I like 9:40's thought that this will now let me say that I have been deposed. Just like I once served on a jury (before law school), I think it's great to be on the other side of things.
@9:52am – unless I'm misreading NRS 50.255, it doesn't say you can't get a witness fee in a case where you are the attorney, or were the attorney, on the case. It says attorneys are not allowed witness fees "in any case". I read that as it says "in any case" including cases both where you were an attorney and where you were not an attorney in the case.
But, Your Honor, that was passed in 1971. Give me my $15, please.
10:35, I disagree.
>No attorney or counselor at law, in any case, shall be allowed any fees for attending as a witness in such case.
I think "in any case" means "in any lawsuit", not the other use where it would mean "regardless of anything"
"in any case" is modified by "in such case" – it's talking about the specific case in which an attorney is the attorney.
Happy to be persuaded I'm wrong. But I've received witness fees as an attorney before.
We need more statutory interpretation in the comments!
11:11 is correct. You cannot be compensated as a witness in a case where you have represented a party. However, if you're merely a fact witness (i.e. witnessed a car crash) you are entitled to the witness fee.
1016. . .The statute says different. Is there a case that interprets to your position?
NRS 50.255 Attorney not allowed fee as witness. No attorney or counselor at law, in any case, shall be allowed any fees for attending as a witness in such case.
(Added to NRS by 1971, 793)
10:40: The language is clear on its face. "In any case" refers to a case where a person is an "attorney or counselor at law " "in such case". If it meant that an attorney could never receive a witness fee in any circumstance (which is in itself nonsensical) the modifier "in such case" would be completely superfluous.
Where is the interpretation of this ambiguity I asked for? Leg History? Caselaw? Or should I simply cite as "@125pm".
🙄
1:29 your "ambiguity" is contrived. There is no other reasonable reading of that language. Hence, the lack of case law interpreting it.
Rediagram the sentence: In any case no attorney or counselor at law shall be allowed any fees for attending as a witness in that case.
Nevada heavily borrowed from California's civil practice laws. See, e.g., Sec. 66, Act of April 10, 1855, ch. LXXIV, Cal. Stats. 1855, at p. 98, https://clerk.assembly.ca.gov/sites/clerk.assembly.ca.gov/files/archive/Statutes/1855/1855.PDF#page=110 ("No Attorney or Counselor at Law in any case shall be allowed any fees for attending as a witness in such cause.").
Changing the sentence is not "rediagramming" it. It clearly says that an attorney in a case can't get witness fees in that case. What would be the policy reason for excluding attorneys from receiving witnesses fees in a case where their only involvement is as a percipient witness? There is none.
Next year's state bar conference will be in New Mexico
It's obscene that a single penny of bar dues goes to these out of state vacations for board members. This year was in NEW YORK, who can afford the time?
State Bar can afford the time on your nickel.
Let’s not forget the Bar’s “site survey” at all those fancy locales. Disgusting
It should switch back and forth between Reno and Las Vegas every year, or frankly, two years in a row in Vegas then a year in Reno.
Or someplace that we can get to easily, like San Diego. Six hours by car or an hour by air, and everybody loves SD. Of course, though, they'd book the Hotel del Coronado and thereby price us all out.
New to practicing in this jurisdiction… every aspect of every single decision I've seen the SBN make has been literally nonsensical. What the hell is going on
Heard from a candidate who didn’t get the nod that Ganz will be the next Discovery Commissioner
I think you must be out of your mind to want to be a judge, and wanting to be DC doesn't even register as human behavior.
I don’t care what the line is, I’m taking Musk over Zuckerberg. Yes this is related to law because Musk owns Twitter and that’s where I get me legal news … ok it’s not related to law …