Civility

  • Law
After today’s “performance”, we’re going to try something new on the LVLB moving forward. 
We’re certain a small, vocal minority of our readers won’t like it (see inevitable complaints to follow), but we believe the vast majority of our target audience will appreciate it. 
We’re going to ask that you try to keep your comments civil from now on. That means save the indiscriminate personal attacks, insults, bigotry, hate, shade, bullying, etc. for another forum. If you have a personal axe to grind, please do the same.
This request doesn’t mean we can’t still freely discuss the comings and goings of our legal community, our peer’s actions, inactions, demeanor, temperament, and especially their transgressions – those are, and have always been fair game here. 
We just don’t want our little blog to become/continue to be a platform for a few bad apples who want nothing more than to bully and spew hate, for no legitimate or constructive purpose.  That’s not why this blog exists, and we know that’s not why most of you visit. 
Thanks everyone!

author
89 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lawyer Bird
Guest
Lawyer Bird
September 21, 2017 3:20 am

Just delete the bullshit straight away. Kickstands, Doug Ansell, BK hottie, Voldemort, just delete it. And maybe require some kind of registration, even if anonymous at least a unique identifier. Good luck.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 3:06 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

Agree

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:39 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

Completely agree.

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
September 21, 2017 3:29 am

Thanks for the support, LB!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 2:37 pm
Reply to  law.dawg

Thanks for maintaining the blog. It is much appreciated by many in the legal community.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:48 am

Thank you for this breath of fresh air. I really appreciate this blog and the work it takes to maintain it. I love the debates over issues that matter–and the same-day sometimes same-minute updates on current legal issues. Please know how many of us who read but don't often post appreciate this blog, warts and all. I'm not a fan of legislating civility but I think we can all try to be substantive instead of mean.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 2:20 pm

I think it's a good move. I read daily, and sometimes contribute, but I felt like the last few days have been a huge waste with posts that were both mean and boring. Looking forward to some more substantive discussions.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 3:13 pm

Does that mean we can't have the Lawyer Hot thread anymore? :'(

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
September 21, 2017 3:18 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Yes. That's lame.

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
September 21, 2017 3:22 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

And even if it was well-intentioned, as soon as one person suggests that someone is attractive, another person comes along and calls that person a horse face and that doesn't do anyone any good.

hsw
Guest
hsw
September 21, 2017 3:27 pm

I come here for the news especially since the RJ changed formats.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 3:39 pm
Reply to  hsw

Try the Sun or the NV Indie. You just have to stop the Sun from loading fully, or else it demands to be white-listed on your ad-blocker. Nope. Sorry, Greenspun, there is exactly zero chance I'm letting your lame site puh ads in my face.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 3:30 pm

While I think it is a good move, from a personal perspective, it comes years too late. The assertion that the last few days have been mean ignores years of venom that were spewed on this Blog. Nothing has happened in the last few days which was not tolerated and encouraged for years. For those of us who were the subject of having lies told about us on here, our looks unscathingly reviewed or having scurrilous and untrue allegations made which went unchecked, the sudden decision for civility seems hollow.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 3:46 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I'm sorry that you've been attacked on the blog. That sucks. I haven't been attacked here, so I don't know what it's like, but I imagine it feels dehumanizing and debasing. Let me go back to something – I haven't been attacked here. You want to know why? Because I'm still just a young attorney, still trying to make it, and there isn't a reason for anyone to attack me. I know it's no consolation, 8:30 AM (and others), but 95% of the time the reason a person on here is attacked is because they're successful. The anonymous attacks are mostly driven by jealousy and other petty emotions. Whenever I keep reading the same name attacked here, I honestly assume that the target is a good attorney who has earned (and that really is the word) haters. So just know that when I, Joe Blow Nobody Attorney, read the attacks on you 8:30 AM, I assume they were bullshit and that you are f*cking awesome.

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
September 21, 2017 3:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

We understand your position and regret you feel that way.

We can tell you that we have done our best to foster thoughtful, meaningful conversation with our posts. We have never encouraged harassment, lies, etc., and we've done our best to deal with these situations when people have reached out to us with their concerns.

We have full time jobs (that pay), families, and other obligations. Policing every comment realtime to try and determine its veracity, relevancy, etc. is honestly not realistic with the blog in its current set-up.

We're glad you still read the blog, and going forward, we are hoping to clean it up.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:43 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

8:46– I appreciate your perspective. Let me disagree with one statement that you made. "You want to know why? Because I'm still just a young attorney…and there isn't a reason for anyone to attack me." The attacks on this page have many times had nothing to do with anyone having "a reason… to attack". People attack because they can attack; rather than going home and kicking the dog, we kick each other. I am not a high-profile attorney. Yet I Googled my name and do you know what came up? THIS PAGE. This page and lies which were disseminated on this page. This page has been a bastion for the Kitty Genovese Effect, where people can gang up and go after someone and everyone stands by and either joins in or doesn't stop it. Think about when was the last time that someone came to the defense of someone being attacked? Doesn't happen very often. That is the Blog Administrator's fault directly; that is the fault of all of us on this page who have allowed so much garbage to go unchecked without stepping up to stop it.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:44 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Sorry that is NOT the Blog Administrator's fault.

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
September 21, 2017 4:49 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

As we've said since the inception of this blog, if you have a legitimate issue with something on this blog, send us a message and we will see if it is something that can/should be addressed.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:26 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

9:43 AM,

8:46 AM here. I hope you know that my comment wasn't meant to argue that the effects or pain of what you've experienced aren't real or reasonable. I am just making the point that most of the people in the peanut gallery see the attacks for what they are.

I do disagree with this statement, however: "People attack because they can attack." It sucks we don't know why you were attacked, but there is a reason, and that reason is almost certainly some combination of insecurity and jealousy on the part of the attacker. I think most people get that.

Anyway, I don't know if anyone has paid attention to what happened to Kevin Durant this week, but it's a good reminder that you're not always anonymous online. If basic decency doesn't restrain your conduct, perhaps remembering that you may be unmasked – maybe even by your own stupidity like KD – will keep you from attacking others. Funny thing, I believe someone made the same mistake as KD this past week, although the comment was quickly deleted.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 3:32 pm

What is up with NSC and the lack of opinions?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:00 pm

Personally, I thought yesterday was a hoot. I come here for occasional comic relief. So these changes likely will cause me to be a less frequent visitor. It's not really a big deal one way or the other. I don't tend to make news or have a high profile in my own practice. I simply try to enjoy my work, do a good job for my clients, and earn a decent living. I don't get billion dollar verdicts, lose my shit while on the bench, or fall in love with gang-banger clients.

But if the blog is to adopt a more serious and businesslike tone, its owner should remove "rumors, gossip, etc." from its mission statement. There are serious blogs and funny blogs. Make up your mind which type you want to be.

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
September 21, 2017 4:06 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You might be misapprehending the concept of civility. Nothing is changing, except that we aren't going to continue to allow people to comment about nothing more than the personal appearance of someone, or simply to hurl insults. If those type of comments were why you were visiting, I'm sorry to hear that, but its probably for the best that you be on your way.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:06 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

"So these changes likely will cause me to be a less frequent visitor." Good. On your way out, don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:02 pm

I just this blog can differentiate between constructive criticism of a fellow atty in the field and personal attacks. Sometimes they can intertwine or turn from one to the other, but i feel that sometimes criticizing a judge or an attorney on here for how they do certain things, without making it a personal attack on who they are as a person, can serve a purpose as well.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:02 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I just hope*

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
September 21, 2017 4:09 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

We're trained, professional differentiators. If we, as a whole, can't make these differentiations, the legal community is in bigger trouble than we thought.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:47 pm

posts yesterday were true.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 4:51 pm

comments yesterday are not available to read

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 6:42 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I miss one day and apparently miss all the drama. I think you should repost the comments so that we can review what was said to spark this change….(I'll grab some popcorn)

Lawyer Bird
Guest
Lawyer Bird
September 21, 2017 4:51 pm

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:04 pm

Thank you good move

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:07 pm

Judge Villani dismissed indictment of Alexis Plunkett!

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:35 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Did he give a reason for dismissing?

Lawyer Bird
Guest
Lawyer Bird
September 21, 2017 6:19 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

A little more info here; https://www.reviewjournal.com/crime/courts/judge-dismisses-indictment-against-las-vegas-attorney/

Though I'm curious how Villani got around 195.020 which is extremely broad.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 6:29 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Because Judge Villani probably didn't read 195.020. "Villani said the statute Raman cited doesn’t have any mention or guideline of how to punish an aider or abbetor — just inmates." No criminal statute identifies how to punish someone who aids or abets, because someone who aids or abets is a principal to the crime, and 195.020 says they "shall be proceeded against and punished as such." Judge Villani got this wrong. That JP Ramen was too diplomatic to say so doesn't change that.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 6:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Well JP sure knows better and I hope he appeals this ruling.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:20 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I don't. I hope he uses some discretion. Determines that Plunkett has gone through enough and moves on to actually go after people who are a threat.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:34 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Illegal to furnish phones to prisoners. Prisoners means anyone held in custody under the law (NRS 208.085). What's the problem here?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:52 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I agee with 11:53. I believe Villani understood the Law on this point a little better than people here are giving him credit for. It appears to me that he may have some concern about proportionality.

The intense media-driven public shaming, harm to reputation and business, the torment of wondering for months whether her license, or even liberty, may be in peril, plus all the associated costs of what is probably a fairly expensive legal defense, may be more than sufficient punishment for her letting the inmate use the cell phone.

Villani may have felt that the law and facts in this matter provided him enough discretion and wiggle room to take the approach he did. And his apparent philosophy in this matter is arguably supportable since it does not appear it can be proven that she gave the phone to an inmate to aid him in the furtherance of a crime.

I understand the merely providing of the phone to the inmate is prohibited, but unless some real nefarious purpose was established for doing so, Villani may have desired, to the extent the law allows, to exercise discretion and decide the unofficial, real-life penalties she has already endured are sufficient.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

12:52 here again. Actually, meant to say I agree with 12:20

Lawyer Bird
Guest
Lawyer Bird
September 21, 2017 10:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

@12:34 Best I can make out from NDOC's limited inmate search Aravelo was in NDOC custody from 2013 through 2016. I'm not sure why he was being housed at CCDC at the time of these incidents but the statute applies to "prisoners confined in a jail." It was probably an appeal or new charges, something that had him back to court from prison.

JP is zealous but he's not an idiot, I don't think the case hinged on the definition of prisoner.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 11:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Arevalo is not serving a sentence, he is not in NDOC custody, and he is pre-trial detainee alone.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:09 pm

Some posters seem to have difficulty understanding what is expected as to this new civility approach implemented by Las Vegas Law Blog.

Although I can't know precisely what LVLB expect from now on, beyond what they already posted, I have a couple examples of behavior they apparently would like to see us all avoid.

1. No personal attacks, or name-calling, against judges, attorneys or others based on personal grudges or personal antipathy toward that individual.

2. If disagreeing with someone, in a cordial matter state the reasons why you see things differently. Stick to the issue. Don't make it about personalities. No name-calling. Simply explain why you differ from someone's view. Don't call them an idiot or mental midget simply because you may view a matter differently than them.

With all that being understood, I hope Las Vegas Law Blog understands that because people discuss a topic or an individual in an unpleasant manner, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not worthy of discussion.

For example, I agree that all the name-calling and personal
attacks on both sides of the Veterans In Politics issue is undignified, harmful, solves nothing, and in fact makes everything worse.But the problem is with the approach, not the topic itself.

If handled in a civil manner without name-calling or personal attacks, it is quite newsworthy and significant in the legal community that a judge recuses himself from a case, in a very open and transparent manner, referencing what he determined to be improper and undue influence from an activist group in the community. Matters like that seldom occur, are of interest, and do raise very significant ethical questions and issues surrounding ex parte communications, how judges receive information, attempts to influence the judiciary, etc.

Those topics, if discussed in a cordial manner without letting it deteriorate into personal attacks, do matter quite a bit.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:28 pm

Last thing I worry about are judges and other attorneys. Attorneys will screw over other attorneys.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:29 pm

Public officials should be fair game.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 5:36 pm

As someone else said above, I'm not sure I saw anything yesterday that really stood out as being any worse than what has come before. Did things degenerate late in the day (after I last checked in), or is this "new policy" a response to the entire conversation from yesterday? Normally the admins will delete specific comments that go over the line, but it appears that they wiped out all comments from yesterday, positive or not, so I'm guessing the latter?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 6:03 pm

Maybe this would help…."How to Calm an Angry Client in 90 Seconds or Less". It's from the Attorney at Work blog. https://www.attorneyatwork.com/angry-client-calm/

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 6:07 pm

10:09 is delusional. That will never happen and shouldn't happen. I think every once in a while we need to be reigned in. That is all the moderators want. There is no need for drastic changes. I mean come on, who wants civility is disagreements? We don't get that in our dealings with other attorneys so why demand that here. Just weed out the bigotry. Leave in the name calling especially if it is funny. I mean a sausage finger is a sausage finger.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:30 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You obviously don't understand what the moderators are attempting to accomplish if you start off with name-calling by saying 10:09 is delusional. As difficult as it may be for you, why don't you merely take issue with 10:09's position, without asserting that 10:09 has some serious psychological disorder?

Why didn't you leave out the "delusional" part and start your remarks with your next sentence "That will never happen…"?

Contrary to what you believe, many people are interested in more of a policy-based discussion, and no one finds you cute, edgy, satirical, clever, irreverent, tough, no-holds-barred, direct, or funny merely because you label someone with a highly insulting, inflammatory name simply because they may not agree with 100% of what you say 100% of the time.

Simple truth is, since you're insisting what the moderator expects, I submit you totally misunderstand what the moderator expects if you insist they understand and support that discussions are more interesting and lively if you call names. If you re-read the plain language of what they wrote, starting off your posting by calling another poster "delusional" is precisely the type of approach the moderator would like to see be avoided.

Since you believe we should insult each other, I wonder if you are perhaps a really young and/or inexperienced and/or unsuccessful attorney, based on your insistence that we, as attorneys, get nowhere by being civil with each other.

I suppose you could somewhat justify such approach if you have committed that every single dispute in every one of your cases must be resolved by a judge or jury. But if you ever want to resolve matters with the other side(which constitutes how the overwhelming majority of case are resolved between successful attorneys) you better learn to be civil with opposing counsel.

That said, granted there are matters where opposing counsel is so obnoxious and difficult that they have forfeited the right to be treated civilly. But I hope that remains the clear minority of cases.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 7:45 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

*yawn* tl;dr you lost me at "you don't understand"

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 7:53 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

OK, I decided to read it (insert rolled eye emoji) I have one question. Is assuming things about me >,<, or = calling someone delusional? I might be young to you considering how old you are. I might be inexperienced depending on how long or what areas you practice. I might be unsuccessful depending on how you define success. Its kinda funny to me you were #triggered by the word delusional but had no problemo questioning my age, experience, and/or success. #truetalk #iloveusinghastagsonblogspot

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 6:31 pm

How much money did this whole experience cost Plunkett?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 6:33 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I'm sure she made money off of it with the publicity

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Not sure about that. I am NOT a believer in the adage that "All publicity is good publicity". And this was not good publicity.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 8:12 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Case dismissed? All 14 counts? You gotta be kidding me.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 6:43 pm

Taking away anonymity would help.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:28 pm

Damn NSC. Can you churn out some opinions? Maybe we will get some late like last week.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:40 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

No Forthcoming Opinions listed. Called the Clerk's Office. They said that they have received no Advance Opinions for this week. I said "Well but you didn't have any last week and then released some…." They said "Yeah, don't know."

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 7:54 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Damn that is aggravating. Why can't they at least be a smidgen efficient!?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 12:22 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Run, get them out.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 8:47 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 9:57 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 10:01 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

These bullies are now our colleagues. Let that sink in.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 10:06 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

Moderator, please delete references to her name. We have no idea if this is true or if her family knows.

law.dawg
Guest
law.dawg
September 21, 2017 10:16 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

Good call. Thanks.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 10:33 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

The bullies are among us. Push back.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 1:58 am
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

Did the previous commenters state that this happened at Boyd? I know that it's best to delete references to the girl's name but if this happened at Boyd I think it's important for people in the community, especially those who work at Boyd, to know.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 2:31 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

I know someone talked to the Dean about emotional health and he deflected to the academic success person. Seems to me we know what their priorities are.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 6:51 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

That is fucked up. Your first priority should be your students. That is not the Boyd I went to.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 11:00 pm
Reply to  Lawyer Bird

I'm glad I went to Dean Morgan's Boyd.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 10:27 pm

Being a female in this female professions suck. You don't get support from other female attorneys.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 10:50 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Very valid point. I feel that is generational, though. I try to mentor and be kind whenever I can and I'm in my 30s. That said, SNAWA is an awesome group of very friendly women. Highly recommend joining.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 11:32 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I cannot agree. There are some very nasty women in that group. I prefer to fly solo.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 21, 2017 11:47 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

Seconded. Find a group. If not SNAWA, or another already existing group, then make your own support group of other female attorneys. You're not alone, there are other women going through the same shit you're going through and it's important to know that you're not alone, your concerns are real, and to have other women who can talk you through things.
And like, 3:50, we should all try to be the change we want to see in the world. For the times when we feel isolated and overwhelmed and frustrated, there are other women feeling the same way right that instant and if we reach out to each other we can help each other and ourselves.
And now I sound like a shitty Hallmark card, but I'm not wrong, and after the deeply terrible work week I've had I really need to cling to the idea that reaching out and supporting each other will make things better for all of us. Eventually.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 12:06 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Thank you for your post and for cursing. Some female attorneys are worse than the men, so female attorneys get it from both ends.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 12:15 am
Reply to  Anonymous

There are nasty people in every group. There are also some women, like me, who have been supporting and mentoring women attorneys for decades.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 12:43 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I read to get my mind off stuff. Being by yourself is the best company you can have.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 2:03 am
Reply to  Anonymous

So are "That's what she said" jokes off limits with the new blog policies? Because I'm trying to keep it classy after reading @5:06's comment about female attorneys getting it "from both ends".

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 2:08 am
Reply to  Anonymous

Thank you for this advice ladies. Sorority is everything.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 3:47 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I am wondering what you mean by "support." I am female and I never expected anyone male or female to treat me any differently because I'm female.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 4:01 am
Reply to  Anonymous

8:47 P.M. are you conventionally attractive?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 4:24 am
Reply to  Anonymous

I'm glad you've never experienced what some of us have @847. No one expects to be treated differently, the support we're talking about is someone to understand what it is like when the legal community treats us differently because we're women.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 1:58 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

8:47 here – 9:24, where did I say I never experienced what some women have? I asked for clarification of what was meant by "support" from other female attorneys? It was a serious question.

9:01, why do you ask?

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 2:16 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

924 here, I apologize for reading your question as a challenge. I mean support as friendship and collegiality. 901 was implying that you'd never experienced negative treatment as well, I believe, because of your statement about not expecting different treatment since the conversation was about supporting one another in the face of negative treatment.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 4:14 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

I'm a female attorney and I cringe at the suggestion that women don't support each other. The vast majority of my interactions with female attorneys are at least neutral. I get more BS behavior and attitude from male attorneys.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 5:39 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

You are very lucky. I have experienced other female attorneys who are extra competitive and outright nasty to me as a fellow attorney. You would think that we would try to support one another, but they did not get the memo.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 23, 2017 7:25 pm
Reply to  Anonymous

10:39 has it occurred to you that maybe another female attorney who is extra competitive or outright nasty may just be extra competitive or outright nasty and that it is not necessarily related to you being female? If you are saying a nasty person should be less nasty than they otherwise would be because you are both female, then you are saying you want special treatment because you are female. I"m not a big fan of making our jobs more miserable than they need to be or using being an a-hole as a legal strategy, but if an opposing attorney has an absolute garbage case against my client or is pulling shenanigans, then sometimes my civility towards that attorney can crack and I might be less than a ray of sunshine – whether that attorney is male or female. I'm not going to cut the other attorney a break just because we are both female. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you mean by "support," which is why I originally asked how that was meant.

Anonymous
Guest
Anonymous
September 22, 2017 2:08 am

Thank you for this advice ladies. Sorority is everything.