- Quickdraw McLaw
- 37 Comments
- 194 Views
Have you been to the Nevada CLE Board website lately? If not, you may want to give it a visit and make sure you are on track to complete your CLE for the year. There is a lot of news on their front page about the 13 credit requirement for next year (which includes substance abuse every year) and hoping to shift the burden of the $40 annual fee to CLE providers. In the meantime, an email went out yesterday indicating for 2018, the $40 annual fee required in SCR 210(1) will be included as part of a consolidated fee statement that will be sent via email by the State Bar of Nevada. Hopefully, this will make it easier to pay your fees and we won’t end up with a long list of CLE suspended lawyers like we did earlier this year.
The CLE Board and State Bar understand as much about how businesses operate as the Democratic Party does. If you charge fees to CLE providers for registering their courses, the providers are going to pass those fees on (whether itemized or not) to CLE customers, just like companies pass on the burdens of higher taxes. There's no free lunch. If we as a profession are going to maintain a payroll and overhead for a CLE Board, lawyers are going to continue to be charged for the pleasure of sleeping through 13 hours of PowerPoint presentations a year.
Agree with 8:40. Additionally, I'm not sure I'm understanding their table correctly. It says "$25 per application" and "$5 per credit" for an Individual Attorney. Sooooo, does that mean I'm paying $25 per CLE I attend throughout the year (on top of whatever the CLE costs), and paying $5 per credit given in the course as well? So if I take a 13 credit course for $1500, I'm paying $25 more for taking the course and $65 for the credits?
I think it's all provider-based. So if you have a full-time CLE provider, they pay the CLE Board $500/year, plus $5/credit/attorney they provided the CLE course to. So if they got 10 people to sign up for a 2 credit course, they pay the CLE board $5 x 10 x 2 = $100. If it's an individual attorney putting on the CLE, the attendees send their payment to the CLE Board. So, in your example, if you take a 13 credit course from an accredited provider, $65 will be owed to the CLE Board by the provider for your education. You wouldn't pay the CLE board anything for that class, because you took it from an accredited provider.
Ahhhh right. So the accredited CLE provider will just add $65 to cost of the course. Thanks CLE board!
@9:42, sorry I have to disagree with your analysis in part. The provider won't simply add $65 to the price of the course. That fails to account for the added administrative and overhead cost that the business incurs in complying with the requirement or the customary profit margin. Instead of adding $65 to the price of the course, I would anticipate a regulatory fee add-on of about $95-$120.
Even better. But hey, we're "saving" $40! CLE Board is helping everyone amirite?
Any recommendations for an online Nevada CLE provider to complete all the CLE requirements for 2017?
I commented that I signed up for NBI All You Can Eat for 2016 and it was good and very local but expensive. I signed up for Lawline this year All You Can Eat and it was like $149 and have polished off not only 2017 but pretty much have carryover credits to take a huge dent out of 2018. Plus it has topics that are pretty "Non-CLE" which kept it interesting to listen/watch.
Have never tried them, but their website says that they are a Nevada approved provider and the posted cost for 24 hours of on-line credits as $119.
https://www.accessmcle.com/purch_selection.aspx?media=9&state=nv-cle
MCLEZ. It's cheap an fast. MCLEZ.com
If there are areas of law that you are interested in learning about (as opposed to just cheaply checking the box which I freely acknowledge is a valid objective) I love WestLegalEd.
With the (clunky) iPhone app I listen on drives or while out with the dogs.
I have like 20 rollover credits (so I could take a couple years off, I guess) but some of the presenters are brilliant. (And some are idiots so I just never complete the class.)
$840 a year but I'm active in three States so it keeps track of which classes satisfy which requirements.
My second to last employer offered West Legal Ed. I loved it. So much "free" CLE
9:52 raises an interesting question: What is the most eclectic CLE Topic that you have ever taken?
To 9:52:
The answer is "The Effect Of Nineteenth Century German Philosophy On Western Jurisprudence(With Particular Emphasis On Nevada).
When that topic was exhausted by the afternoon, the rest of the CLE session was devoted to "The Use Of Medieval Dance To Relieve Stress Among High-Pressured Nevada Trial Attorney.
Adult Entertainment Law: Legal Issues in the XXX World
If someone wants to present a CLE class for credit in Nevada, they have to pay to "teach" the class?
No teaching is free. Offering credit costs money. A little known fact is that the CLE Board allows you to take courses approved in other jurisdictions and then YOU submit them for credit in Nevada. I have done it some insofar as the selections for some of the other jurisdictions in which I am licensed are broader and more interesting. I had a CLE provider tell me that getting courses approved is much easier in surrounding states so they offer broader choices in surrounding states and then just tell NV attorneys to submit them for credit here.
Heed this, all ye anonymous voices:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/11/appeals-courts-disturbing-ruling-jeopardizes-protections-anonymous-speakers
This is an exceptionally well-written article that discusses a decision that should disturb all members of the legal community. This decision is all the more troubling because it was issued by the 9th Circuit, which traditionally has been more protective of the First Amendment than other federal circuits. It bothers me that nobody else has posted a comment about this.
There were a couple of posts over the last couple days that got my attention, but I have trouble accepting the arguments. Perhaps some people can offer input.
1.Yesterday(11/14, at 4:08), a poster said that when accepting appeals that it is sometime more important that you have skilled knowledgeable paralegals, than it is how skilled you are as an attorney.
It struck me as a difficult premise to accept. But they went on to explain that problems with the processing and acceptance of appeals are usually caused by the myriad of maddening administrative rules, ministerial requirements, transmission of the transcript, and a gazillion other requirements and deadlines. Often, the poster argued, the attorneys have their arguments, preparation and research well in hand, but before the matter can ever get competently through the appeals matrix, there are often many problems. So, the point was that an extremely skilled, experienced and knowledgeable support staff, that has processed multiple appeals, is critical. A far more common problem than the attorney's arguments ultimately being rejected and losing the appeal on the merits, is the occurrence that the attorney never gets remotely to the point where the appeal can win or lose on the merits because there are so many procedural/administrative road blocks and land mines. This post was probably prompted by the recent posts wherein attorneys were slapped around for poor and derelict processing of an appeal.
2. And on Wednesday, 11/13/17, 4:08 there was a post referring to a study which suggests most written discovery is completely useless. It suggested that when there is some smoking gum document which really turns the case that it was either provided to the attorney by their own client, or obtained through subpoena, and sometimes a release.
Apparently, according to this supposed study(which the poster never actually identified) very rarely does the other side(even if they are required to) provide the really incriminating document in response to written discovery requests.
Is any of this accurate, or are these posters just having some fun? Am I slow on the take to sarcasm and lampoonery, or is there justification for these two seemingly far-reaching positions–the first being that when accepting appeals the competence of support staff can be more important than the skill of the attorney, and the general uselessness of written discovery requests?
1. I did not take it to say competent support staff is more important than the attorney, just emphasizing that competent support staff is more important on appeals than in many District Court matters because the picayune formatting rules and strict deadlines which the appellate courts follow.
2. I think that was anecdotal. I have never seen a formal study which supports those statistics.
I haven't had support staff since I changed firms a couple years ago, and I can handle the occasional appeal just fine. The NV Sup Ct clerks will not throw out your case if you screw something up, but they probably will ding you if you ignore them when they point out your mistakes. When I get a reminder from them that I missed a deadline, there's always a week or so to fix it, and I'm sure they would give you an extension if you asked. So basically, just pay attention and you'll be fine. Blow them off, and your appeal may be tossed.
I don't think the formatting rules are that complicated. Does anyone else disagree? Just don't put yourself in a position where you're filing after hours the date it's due. Give yourself time to review each subpart of the formatting rules and it's all good. Some posters make it sound like a complicated, technical area of law. It's not.
If 3:27 and 3:29 are correct, then why are so many appeals delayed, or ultimately dismissed, often with the attorney being reprimanded or sanctioned, for procedurally/administrative non-compliance?
Does such occur mainly because they are bad,disorganized attorneys?
Or is it that there are too many picky requirements and that the appellate system extols form over substance?
I believe it is a bit of both.
I’ve never thought of appeals as requiring special expertise. I still don’t, despite the dozen adds in the Nevada Lawyer and Communique advertising appellate firms.
4:02: many trial lawyers think they can do appeals because they can do motions. Those lawyers often misunderstand the standard of review and simply reargue the issues as they did below. Big mistake.
Although anecdotal, does it have the ring of truth to it?
It does tend to somewhat be consistent with my experience. For example, deposition testimony is sometimes effective to contradict someone's trial testimony, but written discovery responses are decidedly less effective in contradicting trial testimony, because the attorney carefully phrases how they want their client to respond to an interrogatory. But in live depositions, no matter how well prepared a client is, they often say something stupid or unbelievable, which can be used to impeach their testimony at trial.
As for the issue of the really incriminating documents used against the opposing side at a trial or hearing, my experience is similar to what the poster suggests: most of the time those documents are obtained from my own client or subpoena or release, but seldom are they provided by opposing side in response to a documents request.
I think discovery could be useful, but it doesn't usually work out that way. Think about RFA, for example. We're supposed to use them to cut down on issues, by clearing out anything that's undisputed. But I've seen attorneys who try to use them to win the case: "Admit that this was your fault, that I was hurt, and that you should pay me." (Essentially.) And I've seen attorneys who refused to admit things that are obvious: "Admit that this is your signature. Response: Objection, it hurts my case." (Paraphrasing.)
I wish there were a cost-effective way to fight back on these, but most of the time the time that it would take to get it in front of the Disc Comm or Judge just isn't worth it.
Requests for admissions may be useful as to more limited, minor issues. If someone keeps harping on a particular, extremely difficult to prove arcane, minor point, and have never provided a document in support of it, and you send them RFA including a request to admit there are no documents to support their position on such issue, perhaps that can be of some use.
But the NSC takes a dim view of using RFA in a broad, sweeping matter to gut a case such as "Admit the auto accident was entirely your fault and that you were texting and smoking pot at the time" or "Admit the physician you are suing for amputating the wrong leg is completely free of negligence."
So, anything that tends to go to resolution of the ultimate liability issues in the case, as well as preclusion of major issues, will not succeed even if someone fails to respond to the RFA.
2:37 here again. I made an error as to where to locate the posts I was questioning.
The post concerning appeals does appear on Tuesday 11/14/17 at 4:08 p.m. as I stated.
But the post about most discovery being utterly useless(according to some supposed study) was on Monday, 11/13/17, 1:09 p.m.
There was discussion yesterday of some attorney who got ground up by the Ninth Circuit.
Although a lot of the comments were harsh toward the lawyer, and didn't seem to acknowledge that the Ninth Circuit can be a very difficult room to work, I would make an observation I find to be constructive.
The attorney blew the case almost immediately by telling a very accomplished jurist how utterly wrong he was.Sometimes psychology and an understanding of human nature , during a certain exchange with a jurist, can be as important, or more important, than whether or not the attorney is right on the Law. Until the attorney learns that, he should not handle appellate work.
For example, he should learn to persuade a judge without directly telling the judge how dead wrong the judge is. The one jurist said something to the effect: doesn't the Bourne Valley case render your argument moot? The attorney then could have said something like I understand how Your Honor could interpret the Bourne Valley case that way, but I'm not sure it is really applicable to this matter, and please let me explain the basis for my view…
Instead he told a (presumably) very learned justice, who(again, presumably) has, how shall we say this, a very healthy ego and self-image, how dead wrong that justice was.
And this happened right at the beginning. When the attorney told the Justice, how completely wrong he was and that the Bourne valley case had no remote applicability, that is a direct blow to the intelligence, judgment, and ego of a very learned man. The Justice then cannot admit he was wrong while still saving face. If he readily admits he's wrong, after being told bluntly how wrong he is, he will lose face, look unprepared, engaging in faulty analysis and research, and simply not that bright as a legal scholar.
So, skilled appellate counsel would have provided the justice a clear out, as to how to change his opinion to that of the attorney's without losing face or looking faulty in legal analysis , reasoning and preparation.
So, the Justice could conceivably change his view, again, if you concede how it might appear that the Bourne Valley case may render this matter moot, but here's why it actually does not apply… Or, really, any reasonable variation of that.
The idea is to persuade the judge that you are right. This can never happen by attacking the judge's intelligence and legal reasoning and telling them how wrong they are.
And, many reading this will say "I'm not a b.s type person. I tell it like it is. If a Judge or Justice is clearly wrong, I will bluntly tell them how wrong they are without mincing words."
But, for those who feel that way, they should avoid arguing before appellate justices, or at least avoid the Ninth Circuit.
One catches far more bees with honey than with vinegar, or whatever other cliché makes my point.
"You convince the flies by spreading bullshit, not whacking at them with a flyswatter" – the most applicable cliche.
Excellent analysis
5:06 here again.
5:14 says it much better than I ever could.
Either separate in its own thread, or in connection with some later compensation post, I would like to hear from others not just what their compensation amounts to, but also how the firm arrives at that figure. Working attorney income, originating attorney income, billing attorney income, etc. What are your stats in this regard, and what do you make?
Since when is a scotus uling and a Nevada supreme court rulings not applicable law.
Considering how frequently the NSC gets reversed when its decisions are actually reviewed by SCOTUS, I can fully understand the 9th Circuit deciding the the NSC decision is not applicable law.