Here’s the latest on the Boulder City First Amendment/Crosswalk case. [LasVegasNow]
Here’s the latest in the Oracle v. Rimini Street legal battle. [diginomica]
Here’s an update on bill draft requests for the 2019 legislative session, including one submitted by Tick Segerblom to allow conjugal visits. [TNI]
Two lawyers were killed near Chicago recently–one by his brother-in-law and another by an elderly client. Just a little reminder to be safe out there. [Chicago Tribune and NWI.com]
I am assuming in the Boulder City case that a trial was already held and that the Pro Tem Judge had taken the matter under advisement. Rather than hear oral arguments, she issued her ruling and found the defendant guilty on all four counts. Certainly, the way the article was written it would appear to the reader that he was found guilty without a trial. A bit misleading. Of course my assumption could be wrong.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2018 5:16 pm
Regarding my safety. I do not worry about the gang members, drug addicts, and criminals (all alleged) that I represent. I worry most about OBC. That group of ever changing want-a-bes that could not make it in real practice. I must charge my clients three times the usual hours so I can document my reaction to their sneezing, in case 5 years later they claim I did not say, "God Bless You." I must inconvenience them by first thinking of my own CYAs instead of providing the small services (such as meeting at the Courthouse where I do not have my recording system or a witness to their comments). And by far the worst, I am forced to zealously safeguard myself from whomever is the latest alleged criminal to claim something against a 20 plus year attorney with a spotless record. I thought I was supposed to zealously fight for … who? As someone recently argued, how can the NSB be a prosecutor and trade organization, it is mind-boggling. And to all you witty responders who will no doubt write, "bitter much?" to this OP, "Yes, it does make me bitter." Not so much for me, because a couple more years of this and I am on to full-time golfing, but for the new folks just getting started. Please OBC, find some stable employees with some common sense.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2018 6:07 pm
CCBA and the ABA are trade organizations. The Nevada Bar is a regulatory body set up by the Nevada Supreme Court to oversee the practice of law in Nevada. I don't get why so many posters here seem to think the NSB is set up for lawyers. It is not set up to advance the interests of lawyers any more than the NGC exists to advance the interests of Casinos or the NRED exists to advance the interests of Realtors and property management companies.
Because the mandatory dues for the regulatory functions would be a fraction of what you are presently being compelled to pay. Because the SBN TOUTS that it is there for lawyers; even the OBC claims that it is set up for lawyers.
11:07 AM – Your definition of the Nevada Bar is incomplete. Per its website, "Our Mission is to govern the legal profession, to serve our members, and to protect the public interest." https://www.nvbar.org/about-us/our-mission/
Obviously, the SBN has a conflicted mission statement, "to protect the public interest" and "to serve our members." The SBN is trying to do both and it cannot — without a conflict of interest. The interests of the public and the interests of lawyers are not the same. Indeed, they are often in opposition.
Trade Associations serve the interests of their members. Regulators serve the public interest. The SBN needs to be deunified. Our dues will go down, too, once we starve the fat cat bureaucracy and aren't forced to fund all the bar's silliness that has nothing to do with public protection. Time to wake up.
11:07 here. Those are both good points and I agree the NSB should drop the pretense of representing the interests of lawyers in the state.
Guest
Anonymous
August 20, 2018 6:15 pm
The regulatory functions and the trade association functions should be separated. Let us pay for the Admissions and Discipline Departments. Those that want to pay for fancy buildings, artwork, and social events can do so voluntarily.
I agree 100% in separating the regulatory functions from the trade association aspect. I do not, however, believe you will see the kind of savings you are anticipating by the move.
The regulatory side will still need the same staff it has for those functions, will still need physical space (office space), will still need to furnish and equip it's office space, will still need an IT department, supplies, etc.
The savings, if any, will be from the reduction of staff devoted to the social and trade aspects of the bar. It is possible that savings could also be obtained by moving (or eliminating) the ethics hotline to the trade side as that is designed to prevent violations rather than regulate/discipline after they occur. Without seeing the actual budget/expenditures, it is nearly impossible to determine the allocation of income and expenses between the regulatory and trade sides of the bar.
It is undisputed that the trade side generates some revenue. The advertising income from the monthly bar magazine, sponsorship and admission sales to the various social activities, CLE fees, etc would all be attributable to the trade side of the house. Similarly, admission and discipline expenses (testing, background investigations, investigation of complaints, discipline proceedings, public inquiries, website, IOLTA issues with banks, etc) are expenses attributable to the regulatory side of the house.
I think a study should certainly be conducted to determine the net effect of a separation, but am not certain that a net member savings will result. That concern is partly the result of traditional business economics. 100% of the regulatory expenses would have to be borne by all members but the trade costs would only be borne by the participating members. If, like is common with voluntary trade associations, the participation rate is substantially reduced (e.g. ABA, CCBA, various voluntary sections of the bar, etc.) their utility is less valuable to sponsors and advertisers, thus less third party income underwriting those services. If that were to occur, the trade association must either raise prices or reduce services.
For a member participating in only the regulatory portion of the bar, assuming that the trade side is not a net income generator, the cost of membership will go down. If the trade side, however, is a net income generator, the regulatory side will actually increase. Similarly, for a member participating in both sides, if participation in the voluntary side experiences a significant reduction, the combined cost could also increase as third parties (advertisers and sponsors) see less value in their participation and thus withdraw.
No need to reinvent the wheel. Nebraska (and California) provide guidance in splitting the regulatory from the non-regulatory chaff. As a matter of fact, bar bifurcation in Nebraska led to a two-thirds reduction in licensing fees. The Nebraska Supreme Court enumerated the regulatory functions and cast everything left over as non-regulatory voluntary trade association stuff. Of course bar management and personnel in Nebraska squealed (and are still squealing) like the proverbial stuck pig. Expect those at the trough here, SBN personnel, management and especially, the well-paid executive director to do likewise. See https://bit.ly/2wgVfZ5
I was likewise going to cite Nebraska as an example of what can happen when bifurcated and substantial savings. So 1:42– when you say that you do not believe that we Bar members will see substantial savings, but then also say that the bifurcation will result in a substantially reduced participation, you yourself are pointing to the substantial savings because I am not going to subsidize LRE, CLEs that are completely overpriced and SBN Annual Meetings in far-flung locations. I would not be a member of the SBN and would save a ton of money.
As for your hypothesis that OBC is a money drain that benefits from the social side of the SBN, that is a thing of the past. NSC adopted these mandatory suspension and reinstatement fees which soak those subject to discipline ($5000 for a reinstatement for example). No OBC is a cash cow now which is part of the reason that you see OBC going for the throat as revenue raising.
I am assuming in the Boulder City case that a trial was already held and that the Pro Tem Judge had taken the matter under advisement. Rather than hear oral arguments, she issued her ruling and found the defendant guilty on all four counts. Certainly, the way the article was written it would appear to the reader that he was found guilty without a trial. A bit misleading. Of course my assumption could be wrong.
Regarding my safety. I do not worry about the gang members, drug addicts, and criminals (all alleged) that I represent. I worry most about OBC. That group of ever changing want-a-bes that could not make it in real practice. I must charge my clients three times the usual hours so I can document my reaction to their sneezing, in case 5 years later they claim I did not say, "God Bless You." I must inconvenience them by first thinking of my own CYAs instead of providing the small services (such as meeting at the Courthouse where I do not have my recording system or a witness to their comments). And by far the worst, I am forced to zealously safeguard myself from whomever is the latest alleged criminal to claim something against a 20 plus year attorney with a spotless record. I thought I was supposed to zealously fight for … who? As someone recently argued, how can the NSB be a prosecutor and trade organization, it is mind-boggling. And to all you witty responders who will no doubt write, "bitter much?" to this OP, "Yes, it does make me bitter." Not so much for me, because a couple more years of this and I am on to full-time golfing, but for the new folks just getting started. Please OBC, find some stable employees with some common sense.
CCBA and the ABA are trade organizations. The Nevada Bar is a regulatory body set up by the Nevada Supreme Court to oversee the practice of law in Nevada. I don't get why so many posters here seem to think the NSB is set up for lawyers. It is not set up to advance the interests of lawyers any more than the NGC exists to advance the interests of Casinos or the NRED exists to advance the interests of Realtors and property management companies.
Because the mandatory dues for the regulatory functions would be a fraction of what you are presently being compelled to pay. Because the SBN TOUTS that it is there for lawyers; even the OBC claims that it is set up for lawyers.
11:07 AM – Your definition of the Nevada Bar is incomplete. Per its website, "Our Mission is to govern the legal profession, to serve our members, and to protect the public interest."
https://www.nvbar.org/about-us/our-mission/
Obviously, the SBN has a conflicted mission statement, "to protect the public interest" and "to serve our members." The SBN is trying to do both and it cannot — without a conflict of interest. The interests of the public and the interests of lawyers are not the same. Indeed, they are often in opposition.
Trade Associations serve the interests of their members. Regulators serve the public interest. The SBN needs to be deunified. Our dues will go down, too, once we starve the fat cat bureaucracy and aren't forced to fund all the bar's silliness that has nothing to do with public protection. Time to wake up.
11:07 here. Those are both good points and I agree the NSB should drop the pretense of representing the interests of lawyers in the state.
The regulatory functions and the trade association functions should be separated. Let us pay for the Admissions and Discipline Departments. Those that want to pay for fancy buildings, artwork, and social events can do so voluntarily.
I agree 100% in separating the regulatory functions from the trade association aspect. I do not, however, believe you will see the kind of savings you are anticipating by the move.
The regulatory side will still need the same staff it has for those functions, will still need physical space (office space), will still need to furnish and equip it's office space, will still need an IT department, supplies, etc.
The savings, if any, will be from the reduction of staff devoted to the social and trade aspects of the bar. It is possible that savings could also be obtained by moving (or eliminating) the ethics hotline to the trade side as that is designed to prevent violations rather than regulate/discipline after they occur. Without seeing the actual budget/expenditures, it is nearly impossible to determine the allocation of income and expenses between the regulatory and trade sides of the bar.
It is undisputed that the trade side generates some revenue. The advertising income from the monthly bar magazine, sponsorship and admission sales to the various social activities, CLE fees, etc would all be attributable to the trade side of the house. Similarly, admission and discipline expenses (testing, background investigations, investigation of complaints, discipline proceedings, public inquiries, website, IOLTA issues with banks, etc) are expenses attributable to the regulatory side of the house.
I think a study should certainly be conducted to determine the net effect of a separation, but am not certain that a net member savings will result. That concern is partly the result of traditional business economics. 100% of the regulatory expenses would have to be borne by all members but the trade costs would only be borne by the participating members. If, like is common with voluntary trade associations, the participation rate is substantially reduced (e.g. ABA, CCBA, various voluntary sections of the bar, etc.) their utility is less valuable to sponsors and advertisers, thus less third party income underwriting those services. If that were to occur, the trade association must either raise prices or reduce services.
For a member participating in only the regulatory portion of the bar, assuming that the trade side is not a net income generator, the cost of membership will go down. If the trade side, however, is a net income generator, the regulatory side will actually increase. Similarly, for a member participating in both sides, if participation in the voluntary side experiences a significant reduction, the combined cost could also increase as third parties (advertisers and sponsors) see less value in their participation and thus withdraw.
No need to reinvent the wheel. Nebraska (and California) provide guidance in splitting the regulatory from the non-regulatory chaff. As a matter of fact, bar bifurcation in Nebraska led to a two-thirds reduction in licensing fees. The Nebraska Supreme Court enumerated the regulatory functions and cast everything left over as non-regulatory voluntary trade association stuff. Of course bar management and personnel in Nebraska squealed (and are still squealing) like the proverbial stuck pig. Expect those at the trough here, SBN personnel, management and especially, the well-paid executive director to do likewise. See https://bit.ly/2wgVfZ5
I was likewise going to cite Nebraska as an example of what can happen when bifurcated and substantial savings. So 1:42– when you say that you do not believe that we Bar members will see substantial savings, but then also say that the bifurcation will result in a substantially reduced participation, you yourself are pointing to the substantial savings because I am not going to subsidize LRE, CLEs that are completely overpriced and SBN Annual Meetings in far-flung locations. I would not be a member of the SBN and would save a ton of money.
As for your hypothesis that OBC is a money drain that benefits from the social side of the SBN, that is a thing of the past. NSC adopted these mandatory suspension and reinstatement fees which soak those subject to discipline ($5000 for a reinstatement for example). No OBC is a cash cow now which is part of the reason that you see OBC going for the throat as revenue raising.
The Committee to Update and Revise NRCP has filed its 700+ page final report. http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=42567&csIID=42567&deLinkID=665377&sireDocumentNumber=18-32000
Is there a link to the actual report?
It's ADKT 0522. Here's the Petition: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/document/view.do?csNameID=42567&csIID=42567&deLinkID=665358&sireDocumentNumber=18-31981