Tried to sneak a comment in so it could be a topic for the Blog. Nevada has a new bankruptcy judge. . . .from Phoenix. Not a member of the Nevada Bar. No discernable connections to Nevada. I have no doubt that she is a stellar. However I am firmly from the school that you should choose your judges from the state in which they practice. https://www.nvb.uscourts.gov/news-rss/announcements/2023/0403-barnes-release/
Who cares where she is from other than the 9th circuit? look at her work history, at least she knows bankruptcy. Everyone that appears in her court will benefit from that. And she has Reno-based chambers so I'm assuming she has some physical residence in the state.
When you are deciding cases in Nevada it is better to have a judge who has some connection to the community. A judge who knows the local practice, the attorneys and familiar with the way we do business. Someone from a sister state who has no connection to the community is never a good thing.
Never??? I think there's at least some value in federal proceedings having a degree of uniformity across states. If you're suggesting that federal court should follow the norms of the way NV state court "does business" sometimes… I think you'd get a fair amount of pushback on that from the federal bar/bench.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 4:38 pm
Beasley is cooperating. As for the comments last week that Judd, et al. is not being prosecuted. I am guessing that all the players have been indicted under seal and Beasley's is the only one that is unsealed. Watch for Change of plea to be filed shortly.
I thought the "not being prosecuted" reference in the news article(s) was bad reporting by someone who does not know how this works, or who is not careful with their language (as a reporter should be). "Not prosecuted… yet."
Just making a point about the comments to this blawg where there was debate about whether or not Beasley would be eligible to do his time at a camp.
#WordMeanThings
Schiess is fighting release tooth and nail. He is not cooperating. Not saying he will not cooperate in the future. But Beasley is still at loggerheads with the government.
As far as "camp", he might serve his time down to being camp eligible in the future. He will not be camp eligible at sentencing absent a massive pleading down of the charges and loss. Also there is a misperception that BOP has a ton of camps. Not any longer. There are 7 FPC/FCIs across the nation. Western Region has 0. Closest are Bryan, TX or Yankton, SD.
They only initially indicted on 5 counts. Out of 1,000 victims and hundreds (?) of "loans"? Have you ever even litigated against Scheiss? He plays the tough guy and righteously indignant in court, while pleading cases out and filing 5k Motions willy nilly.
My Educated and Experienced Prediction: Beasley will plead to a single count and cooperate, and after his 5k1.1 will land at a camp. To be fair, he might do his 1st 18 months at a low, then when his custody status drops and he is eligible for a transfer, he will be camping.
Finally, you might want to reevaluate your claim about camps and the Western Region, amigo. There are camps at Herlong, Dublin, Mendota, Atwater, Sheridan, Phoenix, Lompoc, just to name a few.
Satellite Camps are camps adjacent to heavier security institutions and are the same security level as FPCs. FPCs are standalone or adjacent to military bases. You are dancing on semantics, which makes you wrong.
The gun charge is the most serious and they could use it to coerce a more beneficial plea. They would not dismiss it were it not for Beasley's cooperation. IMO.
12:38- 12:07 is technically correct. But I get your point about SPCs having comparable security levels to FCI/FCP.
I will say that I disagree about the gun charge. They were going to have a hard time proving Beasley ever aimed his weapon at officers. It looks specious that the guy who gets shot multiple times in his home after threatening no one other than himself was credibly committing a plausible threat against agents. The gun charge created a clear and immediate danger to hold Beasley while they got their evidence together to charge the much cleaner financial crimes. They don't need the gun charge any longer now that they have pled financial crimes for which the loss categorization carries decades until pled down. As I am sure you know, huge financial crimes often carry a much bigger penalty than single firearm charges (except for the whole "camp eligible" thing that I do not even want to get into).
I disagree.
What 1207 said was that Beasley, if assigned to a camp would be, at the closest, TX or SD. This is patently untrue.
Several federal agents testifying that Beasley (who is involved in a multi million dollar Ponzi) pointed a gun at them closes the issue and that is IF Beasley testifies that he never pointed the gun.
The gun charge kept him locked up for 13 months. That is a shit ton of leverage. With this dismissal, Beasley can travel to Lloyd D. George or to 1787 W Lake Mead Blvd. to meet with the FBI at will. No transport, no housing. Encourages him to continue cooperating.
Mark my words. He is cooperating, IMO he will do the less time than other J&J Defendants.
1207 never mentioned Texas or South Dakota. I am 1118, and I did mention those places because of the 7 standalone FPC/FCIs across the nation, the closest are Bryan, TX or Yankton, SD. That statement is true as to stand alones. There are satellites in various locations appurtenant to higher security facilities. My belief remains Judd rolled first.
1147 here. Could’ve been worse. I was more pissed at the Seinfeld finale.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 5:40 pm
State-backed retirement plan for private workers: Stupid idea and unnecessary. In every instance where a worker's employer does not offer a retirement plan, that worker may participate in an individual retirement account and have his/her contributions automatically deducted from his/her earnings. No need to get a bunch of feckless State employees involved and create more bureaucracy. This isn't the State's job. The State isn't good at tasks like this. Having the State involved is fraught with potential issues which would ultimately need to be addressed by the taxpayer. This is a bad idea.
Some day, and that day may not be too far off, many of these wildly-underfunded state retirement programs (including Nevada's) will go into receivership. They are, by and large, poorly managed and overloaded with administrative costs. They underperform yet transfer none of the risk to the beneficiary. There is no free lunch. At some point the Ponzi scheme has to crumble.
At least in the legal profession, there are many small firms (<10 employees or so) that do no offer any sort of 401k, leaving it up to employees who are often relatively unsophisticated with this stuff (meaning they will not fully fund an IRA or will just stick it in a money market because they don't know what else to do) to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, Social Security is going down the tubes. It is easy for my libertarian friends to say "so what; not my problem," but unless we want to deal with a generation that can never retire without living on cat food and/or going on the public dole forever, this retirement situation has to be addressed somehow. Whether this idea is the best way to do it remains to be seen.
The tax benefits of an IRA are comparable to those of an employer-sponsored 401k. Anyone minimally sophisticated in financial matters can create a tax-deferred individual retirement plan. In this day and age, the Vanguards and Fidelities of the world will help anyone set up a plan that will outperform most employer-sponsored plans. Employers not offering retirement plans isn't the real problem.
Here's the thing: setting up an expensive and administratively-heavy state plan won't change the fact that most people choose to ignore the benefits of saving for retirement. A state-run option won't change that; it will just crate more state employees. This isn't an area where the State needs to commit more resources.
State Retirement Programs and Union Trust Funds are all going the way of the dodo bird. Top heavy leadership, overspending and gestapo litigation tactics are all going to cause the liquidation and dissolution of both.
11:26, tell us one area in which the state demonstrates competent money management. Bear in mid that the State spends more than it takes in and its retirement program is underfunded and underperforms. If you or I behaved that way, we'd soon be bankrupt.
One of the issues is that one political party consistently refuses to revise or improve any of the state managed retirement programs from social security all the way to state pensions. This is not an accident. They are doing this so their wealthy donors can take over a previously public function and make money off of it. It's the same reason they have refused to modify the USPS's pension program, why they keep trying to outsource the VA, and why TANF and child support payments are all made through huge banks that allow only 1 free ATM withdrawal and then charge fees to the recipient for all transactions after that. This is no accident. But please, continue telling us all about the big bad nanny state with all your critical thinking skills.
Last September Ron Knecht wrote in Nevada Business Magazine that, "Nevada PERS has done the best job among U.S. pension funds of using index-oriented management on reasonable allocations to asset classes." Up until the pandemic, when nearly all portfolios suffered, NV PERS met their stated market objectives for a frankly very impressive 37 years in a row.
I know Ron Knecht, he's not just a Republican, he is the former Nevada State Controller, and someone who I know firsthand to have a very libertarian oriented political philosophy. He does address some strong and serious concerns about transparency, which he feels would only benefit PERS, but he also appears in that article (at my risk of putting words in his mouth) to clearly support letting the system continue in the largely the same way it has for decades, as the preferred solution to recover from the pandemic. In any event, while certain generalizations about the public operation of enterprise activities may sometimes prove true, (albeit sometimes out of context) this does not seem evident with PERS.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 7:33 pm
I think it's absolutely hilarious that Lombardo says "let's remove regulations" and the response is "here are subsections that contain outdated regulations that don't currently do anything and haven't for decades." Contrary to far-right belief, that government doesn't typically create and enforce regulations without an actual, targeted purpose behind them.
With all due respect, 12:33, it is not a "far right" delusion that slimming down the regulatory burdens on businesses is good for the state. The "actual, targeted purpose behind them" is typically not what is stated but something else, like crushing competition, favoring politically connected, and always increasing the power of the few over the many to allow for political horse trading and further enrichment.
I'm far from a Lombardo voter, but I'm actually glad this is happening and think agencies should try to clean up regs every 10 years. It's bad to have obsolete regs on the books – it's confusing for people getting into the industry and can lead to arbitrary enforcement if an agency suddenly decides *in this case* it's going to start enforcing again. Overall, I think it's just a bad look to have people violating laws and regs and think it's better to just remove them if everyone agrees the law/reg is obsolete/pointless/unenforceable.
1233, there will certainly be more cuts to come. Maybe come back then with something insightful to say.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 7:35 pm
Anyone else get a Board of Governors blast email from some guy named Eric? Never heard of the guy even though it says he works for Lewis & Roca. State Bar says he has been admitted in Nevada for less than 2 years. His email said almost literally nothing about what his platform would be going forward other than "furthering the Bar’s strategic priorities, like improving lawyer wellbeing, promoting inclusion, and providing support services for the Bar’s members."
I take your email as earnest. Truthfully check with your insurance first for who or what is covered.vThen vet those referrals for someone who handles trauma because paranoia is often affiliated with trauma. I speak from experience and have an appointment with my therapist tomorrow. I will say personality and practice fit is crucial; not all therapists will gibe. Find one who you find works. Good luck.
Dr. Daniel Shiode is my therapist and treats other lawyers. Excellent.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 10:14 pm
For my probate practitioners: on Return of Sale, can you use a BPO in lieu of appraisement? I have one that I am opposing and the Estate used a BPO and not an appraisal. Statute seems specific that it has to be an appraisal. TIA.
BPO are fine for Set Asides. For Summary or General Administration purposes (including sales), you need an appraisal. Hell, that requirement and the citation to NRS 144.020(4) is in bright bold purple underlined text in the Probate Calendar document.
No. You need an actual appraisal, not a BPO or Zillow. Alternatively, you can have the appraisal waived by ALL interested parties. You can use a BPO or Zillow for a set aside, particularly if it's clear cut. Have you reached out to opposing counsel? Because just filing an objection without doing that is a waste of fees and time. If counsel digs in, they are going to lose at the hearing. Yamashita would have summarily denied based on this and I am even more certain Fontano will be immovable.
Thank you. That was my reading. Counsel dug in and said BPOs are sanctioned for all purposes that statute calls for appraisal except lending. My read was that was not correct.
Here’s my candidate photo, which they cropped, fascists. Second, I broke my promise. I’m sorry, but I’ve decided that the idea that flat fee cases, which the bar has decided aren’t kosher, is my new issue. If somebody wants to pay me x to do a case, f you for saying I have to bill it.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 10:56 pm
Big news (at least for me) re the Bar and solos. On Wednesday, 4/12/23, I will release the website URL for the Site that is associated with the federal lawsuit. Please do not yell at me if I am off a day or so. I am trying hard for Wed. Thank you.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 11:16 pm
That url doesn't work. Also, please explain re the flat fees? My firm still does cases on a flat fee basis. Thanks
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 11:42 pm
We do lots of cases on flat fees. We've adopted the recommended language from an older NV Bar example retainer agreement regarding 'non-refundable' in that it is actually refundable but it's billed at our normal hourly rate if either the client, or if we, terminate representation before all of the tasks are done. (see https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Sample%20Flat%20Fee%20Agreement.pdf )
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 11:49 pm
The URL Ben provided isn't a URL, exactly, It's a location on his mobile device where the image was saved.
Anyway, what he's referring to is the unearned fee conundrum. Ethics rule says you can't charge an unreasonable fee. You also can not commingle client funds with attorney's funds. A fee for zero work is per se unreasonable. Flat fees, which are paid in advance of any work done, are fine, however, they must be put into a trust account until *reasonably* earned. And, the Bar thinks that it's good practice to bill to the file so that you can justify "earning" it. "Earned upon receipt" clauses are, apparently, not kosher.
Guest
Anonymous
April 10, 2023 11:49 pm
4:42 wins most useful comment of the day award. Congratulations!
I kind of wish Unnamed Bar Counsel had the guts to put their name to it, but such is not the case these days.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 12:24 am
Not a fan of the State Bar but on this one I think they get it right. NRPC 1.5 provides "A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses." You have to be able to justify it related to inter alia "the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly." So show the time and the skill. There is no exception for a flat fee. Make your flat fee agreement address the 8 factors in NRPC 1.5(a) and explain why the fee is reasonable.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 1:18 am
Vote for Ben. The Board of Governors is full of Big Law people and it is time to get solos and smaller practices back in the conversation. For the majority of practitioners in Nevada, solos and smaller practices are the backbone of Nevada. There some excellent practitioners here.
I got the email 12:35 referenced above from the LRR Associate who wants to be on the Board of Governors. Typical BigLaw candidate: "whatever the SBN/BoG is doing I will support". No new ideas. No change. No improvement. Stay the course. More free trips to transcontinental destinations. Ugh. No more of this please.
It is not merely the need for small and solo practitioners but the need for practitioners who are willing to not be toadies to the system. Fresh ideas from people who bring and stand up for smaller firms. Andrew Craner is a solo who appears quite content being a lap dog for SBN.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 2:07 am
I second Ben's point on the State Bar and flat fees. I'm defending an attorney now on this issue. O'Connell v. Wynn Las Vegas confirms no billing required. If only the State Bar would read it.
Guest
Anonymous
April 11, 2023 3:46 pm
O'Connell v. Wynn is not a case about reasonableness of flat fees to a client pursuant to NRPC 1.5; it was a contingency fee after an offer of judgment pursuant to Beattie and Brunzell.
Tried to sneak a comment in so it could be a topic for the Blog. Nevada has a new bankruptcy judge. . . .from Phoenix. Not a member of the Nevada Bar. No discernable connections to Nevada. I have no doubt that she is a stellar. However I am firmly from the school that you should choose your judges from the state in which they practice. https://www.nvb.uscourts.gov/news-rss/announcements/2023/0403-barnes-release/
Who cares where she is from other than the 9th circuit? look at her work history, at least she knows bankruptcy. Everyone that appears in her court will benefit from that. And she has Reno-based chambers so I'm assuming she has some physical residence in the state.
I care as a Nevada bankruptcy practitioner. She has a physical residence in the State of Nevada now that she has been appointed.
I don't think federal judge needs in-state residency.
When you are deciding cases in Nevada it is better to have a judge who has some connection to the community. A judge who knows the local practice, the attorneys and familiar with the way we do business. Someone from a sister state who has no connection to the community is never a good thing.
Never??? I think there's at least some value in federal proceedings having a degree of uniformity across states. If you're suggesting that federal court should follow the norms of the way NV state court "does business" sometimes… I think you'd get a fair amount of pushback on that from the federal bar/bench.
Beasley is cooperating. As for the comments last week that Judd, et al. is not being prosecuted. I am guessing that all the players have been indicted under seal and Beasley's is the only one that is unsealed. Watch for Change of plea to be filed shortly.
I thought the "not being prosecuted" reference in the news article(s) was bad reporting by someone who does not know how this works, or who is not careful with their language (as a reporter should be). "Not prosecuted… yet."
Just making a point about the comments to this blawg where there was debate about whether or not Beasley would be eligible to do his time at a camp.
#WordMeanThings
Schiess is fighting release tooth and nail. He is not cooperating. Not saying he will not cooperate in the future. But Beasley is still at loggerheads with the government.
As far as "camp", he might serve his time down to being camp eligible in the future. He will not be camp eligible at sentencing absent a massive pleading down of the charges and loss. Also there is a misperception that BOP has a ton of camps. Not any longer. There are 7 FPC/FCIs across the nation. Western Region has 0. Closest are Bryan, TX or Yankton, SD.
They only initially indicted on 5 counts. Out of 1,000 victims and hundreds (?) of "loans"? Have you ever even litigated against Scheiss? He plays the tough guy and righteously indignant in court, while pleading cases out and filing 5k Motions willy nilly.
My Educated and Experienced Prediction: Beasley will plead to a single count and cooperate, and after his 5k1.1 will land at a camp. To be fair, he might do his 1st 18 months at a low, then when his custody status drops and he is eligible for a transfer, he will be camping.
Finally, you might want to reevaluate your claim about camps and the Western Region, amigo. There are camps at Herlong, Dublin, Mendota, Atwater, Sheridan, Phoenix, Lompoc, just to name a few.
#YouKnowNothingJonSnow
Also, 1118, if Beasley were at loggerheads and Schiess were actually going full court press, why dismiss the Gun Charge? You are just flat out wrong.
Because the gun charge was a placeholder to keep him detained until they could bring the financial crimes charges, which they now have done.
At 11:47– There are 7 FPC/FCIs across the nation. Western Region has 0. You have listed satellite facilities.
Satellite Camps are camps adjacent to heavier security institutions and are the same security level as FPCs. FPCs are standalone or adjacent to military bases. You are dancing on semantics, which makes you wrong.
The gun charge is the most serious and they could use it to coerce a more beneficial plea. They would not dismiss it were it not for Beasley's cooperation. IMO.
12:38- 12:07 is technically correct. But I get your point about SPCs having comparable security levels to FCI/FCP.
I will say that I disagree about the gun charge. They were going to have a hard time proving Beasley ever aimed his weapon at officers. It looks specious that the guy who gets shot multiple times in his home after threatening no one other than himself was credibly committing a plausible threat against agents. The gun charge created a clear and immediate danger to hold Beasley while they got their evidence together to charge the much cleaner financial crimes. They don't need the gun charge any longer now that they have pled financial crimes for which the loss categorization carries decades until pled down. As I am sure you know, huge financial crimes often carry a much bigger penalty than single firearm charges (except for the whole "camp eligible" thing that I do not even want to get into).
I disagree.
What 1207 said was that Beasley, if assigned to a camp would be, at the closest, TX or SD. This is patently untrue.
Several federal agents testifying that Beasley (who is involved in a multi million dollar Ponzi) pointed a gun at them closes the issue and that is IF Beasley testifies that he never pointed the gun.
The gun charge kept him locked up for 13 months. That is a shit ton of leverage. With this dismissal, Beasley can travel to Lloyd D. George or to 1787 W Lake Mead Blvd. to meet with the FBI at will. No transport, no housing. Encourages him to continue cooperating.
Mark my words. He is cooperating, IMO he will do the less time than other J&J Defendants.
He's camping.
1207 never mentioned Texas or South Dakota. I am 1118, and I did mention those places because of the 7 standalone FPC/FCIs across the nation, the closest are Bryan, TX or Yankton, SD. That statement is true as to stand alones. There are satellites in various locations appurtenant to higher security facilities. My belief remains Judd rolled first.
Judd is telling his (potential) co-defendants that he did nothing and they should not cooperate.
128 here.
I assumed that 1207 was 1118. I misspoke.
11:47, as a GOT fanatic, I'm still pissed at the ending. It was so predictable and "full circle" it made me sick.
1147 here. Could’ve been worse. I was more pissed at the Seinfeld finale.
State-backed retirement plan for private workers: Stupid idea and unnecessary. In every instance where a worker's employer does not offer a retirement plan, that worker may participate in an individual retirement account and have his/her contributions automatically deducted from his/her earnings. No need to get a bunch of feckless State employees involved and create more bureaucracy. This isn't the State's job. The State isn't good at tasks like this. Having the State involved is fraught with potential issues which would ultimately need to be addressed by the taxpayer. This is a bad idea.
PERS retirees like former judges and city attorneys would beg to differ.
Plus, with a 401k and ROTH there are some great tax benefits.
Some day, and that day may not be too far off, many of these wildly-underfunded state retirement programs (including Nevada's) will go into receivership. They are, by and large, poorly managed and overloaded with administrative costs. They underperform yet transfer none of the risk to the beneficiary. There is no free lunch. At some point the Ponzi scheme has to crumble.
The state isn’t good at tasks like this? As opposed to corporations who look out for our interests? (insert eyeroll)
At least in the legal profession, there are many small firms (<10 employees or so) that do no offer any sort of 401k, leaving it up to employees who are often relatively unsophisticated with this stuff (meaning they will not fully fund an IRA or will just stick it in a money market because they don't know what else to do) to fend for themselves. Meanwhile, Social Security is going down the tubes. It is easy for my libertarian friends to say "so what; not my problem," but unless we want to deal with a generation that can never retire without living on cat food and/or going on the public dole forever, this retirement situation has to be addressed somehow. Whether this idea is the best way to do it remains to be seen.
The tax benefits of an IRA are comparable to those of an employer-sponsored 401k. Anyone minimally sophisticated in financial matters can create a tax-deferred individual retirement plan. In this day and age, the Vanguards and Fidelities of the world will help anyone set up a plan that will outperform most employer-sponsored plans. Employers not offering retirement plans isn't the real problem.
Here's the thing: setting up an expensive and administratively-heavy state plan won't change the fact that most people choose to ignore the benefits of saving for retirement. A state-run option won't change that; it will just crate more state employees. This isn't an area where the State needs to commit more resources.
State Retirement Programs and Union Trust Funds are all going the way of the dodo bird. Top heavy leadership, overspending and gestapo litigation tactics are all going to cause the liquidation and dissolution of both.
11:26, tell us one area in which the state demonstrates competent money management. Bear in mid that the State spends more than it takes in and its retirement program is underfunded and underperforms. If you or I behaved that way, we'd soon be bankrupt.
One of the issues is that one political party consistently refuses to revise or improve any of the state managed retirement programs from social security all the way to state pensions. This is not an accident. They are doing this so their wealthy donors can take over a previously public function and make money off of it. It's the same reason they have refused to modify the USPS's pension program, why they keep trying to outsource the VA, and why TANF and child support payments are all made through huge banks that allow only 1 free ATM withdrawal and then charge fees to the recipient for all transactions after that. This is no accident. But please, continue telling us all about the big bad nanny state with all your critical thinking skills.
1136, except the difference between a 401k tax benefit and an IRA tax benefit, assuming one qualifies, is 4-fold. Can't really compare the 2.
Bigger government is NEVER the answer.
Last September Ron Knecht wrote in Nevada Business Magazine that, "Nevada PERS has done the best job among U.S. pension funds of using index-oriented management on reasonable allocations to asset classes." Up until the pandemic, when nearly all portfolios suffered, NV PERS met their stated market objectives for a frankly very impressive 37 years in a row.
I know Ron Knecht, he's not just a Republican, he is the former Nevada State Controller, and someone who I know firsthand to have a very libertarian oriented political philosophy. He does address some strong and serious concerns about transparency, which he feels would only benefit PERS, but he also appears in that article (at my risk of putting words in his mouth) to clearly support letting the system continue in the largely the same way it has for decades, as the preferred solution to recover from the pandemic. In any event, while certain generalizations about the public operation of enterprise activities may sometimes prove true, (albeit sometimes out of context) this does not seem evident with PERS.
I think it's absolutely hilarious that Lombardo says "let's remove regulations" and the response is "here are subsections that contain outdated regulations that don't currently do anything and haven't for decades." Contrary to far-right belief, that government doesn't typically create and enforce regulations without an actual, targeted purpose behind them.
🐎💩
With all due respect, 12:33, it is not a "far right" delusion that slimming down the regulatory burdens on businesses is good for the state. The "actual, targeted purpose behind them" is typically not what is stated but something else, like crushing competition, favoring politically connected, and always increasing the power of the few over the many to allow for political horse trading and further enrichment.
I'm far from a Lombardo voter, but I'm actually glad this is happening and think agencies should try to clean up regs every 10 years. It's bad to have obsolete regs on the books – it's confusing for people getting into the industry and can lead to arbitrary enforcement if an agency suddenly decides *in this case* it's going to start enforcing again. Overall, I think it's just a bad look to have people violating laws and regs and think it's better to just remove them if everyone agrees the law/reg is obsolete/pointless/unenforceable.
1233, there will certainly be more cuts to come. Maybe come back then with something insightful to say.
Anyone else get a Board of Governors blast email from some guy named Eric? Never heard of the guy even though it says he works for Lewis & Roca. State Bar says he has been admitted in Nevada for less than 2 years. His email said almost literally nothing about what his platform would be going forward other than "furthering the Bar’s strategic priorities, like improving lawyer wellbeing, promoting inclusion, and providing support services for the Bar’s members."
I’m voting for Ben.
Vote for Pedro
Promoting inclusion sounds like the addition of yet another mandatory CLE category.
Need referrals for a therapist. I'm probably just paranoid, but prefer someone not affiliated with the State Bar.
I take your email as earnest. Truthfully check with your insurance first for who or what is covered.vThen vet those referrals for someone who handles trauma because paranoia is often affiliated with trauma. I speak from experience and have an appointment with my therapist tomorrow. I will say personality and practice fit is crucial; not all therapists will gibe. Find one who you find works. Good luck.
Phil Glessner. He's legit.
Dr. Barbara Key. Excellent therapist that always seems to diagnose everyone with PTSD.
Dr. Daniel Shiode is my therapist and treats other lawyers. Excellent.
For my probate practitioners: on Return of Sale, can you use a BPO in lieu of appraisement? I have one that I am opposing and the Estate used a BPO and not an appraisal. Statute seems specific that it has to be an appraisal. TIA.
BPO are fine for Set Asides. For Summary or General Administration purposes (including sales), you need an appraisal. Hell, that requirement and the citation to NRS 144.020(4) is in bright bold purple underlined text in the Probate Calendar document.
No. You need an actual appraisal, not a BPO or Zillow. Alternatively, you can have the appraisal waived by ALL interested parties. You can use a BPO or Zillow for a set aside, particularly if it's clear cut. Have you reached out to opposing counsel? Because just filing an objection without doing that is a waste of fees and time. If counsel digs in, they are going to lose at the hearing. Yamashita would have summarily denied based on this and I am even more certain Fontano will be immovable.
3:20 here,
Waddup, Monday Afternoon pro-bro.
Thank you. That was my reading. Counsel dug in and said BPOs are sanctioned for all purposes that statute calls for appraisal except lending. My read was that was not correct.
file:///var/mobile/Library/SMS/Attachments/ce/14/0EC4A7BA-1D37-4588-BE56-73212615B978/IMG_2493.png
Here’s my candidate photo, which they cropped, fascists. Second, I broke my promise. I’m sorry, but I’ve decided that the idea that flat fee cases, which the bar has decided aren’t kosher, is my new issue. If somebody wants to pay me x to do a case, f you for saying I have to bill it.
Big news (at least for me) re the Bar and solos. On Wednesday, 4/12/23, I will release the website URL for the Site that is associated with the federal lawsuit. Please do not yell at me if I am off a day or so. I am trying hard for Wed. Thank you.
That url doesn't work. Also, please explain re the flat fees? My firm still does cases on a flat fee basis. Thanks
We do lots of cases on flat fees. We've adopted the recommended language from an older NV Bar example retainer agreement regarding 'non-refundable' in that it is actually refundable but it's billed at our normal hourly rate if either the client, or if we, terminate representation before all of the tasks are done. (see https://www.nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/Sample%20Flat%20Fee%20Agreement.pdf )
The URL Ben provided isn't a URL, exactly, It's a location on his mobile device where the image was saved.
Anyway, what he's referring to is the unearned fee conundrum. Ethics rule says you can't charge an unreasonable fee. You also can not commingle client funds with attorney's funds. A fee for zero work is per se unreasonable. Flat fees, which are paid in advance of any work done, are fine, however, they must be put into a trust account until *reasonably* earned. And, the Bar thinks that it's good practice to bill to the file so that you can justify "earning" it. "Earned upon receipt" clauses are, apparently, not kosher.
4:42 wins most useful comment of the day award. Congratulations!
Vote for Ben!
For example, Glenn Machado published an article in 2009. https://www.nvbar.org/nvlawmag-archive-957232/NevLawyer_Dec_2009_Practice_Tips.pdf
Unnamed Bar Counsel published an article in 2021: https://nvbar.org/wp-content/uploads/NevadaLawyer_Sept2021_BarCounsel.pdf
I kind of wish Unnamed Bar Counsel had the guts to put their name to it, but such is not the case these days.
Not a fan of the State Bar but on this one I think they get it right. NRPC 1.5 provides "A lawyer shall not make an agreement for, charge, or collect an unreasonable fee or an unreasonable amount for expenses." You have to be able to justify it related to inter alia "the time and labor required, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly." So show the time and the skill. There is no exception for a flat fee. Make your flat fee agreement address the 8 factors in NRPC 1.5(a) and explain why the fee is reasonable.
Vote for Ben. The Board of Governors is full of Big Law people and it is time to get solos and smaller practices back in the conversation. For the majority of practitioners in Nevada, solos and smaller practices are the backbone of Nevada. There some excellent practitioners here.
I got the email 12:35 referenced above from the LRR Associate who wants to be on the Board of Governors. Typical BigLaw candidate: "whatever the SBN/BoG is doing I will support". No new ideas. No change. No improvement. Stay the course. More free trips to transcontinental destinations. Ugh. No more of this please.
6:18 and 6:38 are dead on. It’s long overdue that we get some small and solo practitioners on the board of governors.
What is "Big Law" in Nevada? A firm with 12 attorneys?
It is not merely the need for small and solo practitioners but the need for practitioners who are willing to not be toadies to the system. Fresh ideas from people who bring and stand up for smaller firms. Andrew Craner is a solo who appears quite content being a lap dog for SBN.
I second Ben's point on the State Bar and flat fees. I'm defending an attorney now on this issue. O'Connell v. Wynn Las Vegas confirms no billing required. If only the State Bar would read it.
O'Connell v. Wynn is not a case about reasonableness of flat fees to a client pursuant to NRPC 1.5; it was a contingency fee after an offer of judgment pursuant to Beattie and Brunzell.