Yesterday was last day candidates could withdraw from the judicial races. The only last minute activity of possible note that I saw was Bruce Gale, with minutes to spare, withdrawing form Dept.I–leaving just Bita Yeager and Jacob(not Michael)Villani to fight it out.
Bruce Gale moved to a different department quite some time ago. See Dept 21.
Guest
Anonymous
January 30, 2020 7:38 pm
So, Gale is out of races completely. I was laughing that Craig Friedberg is running for the 5th time.
Guest
Anonymous
January 30, 2020 8:37 pm
11:17 is right that there was a last minute withdrawal in I, which leaves the race to Villani and Yeager. But as 11:46 notes, it was not Bruce Gale who withdrew at the last minute.
Looks like Stephen Smith was the one, and it is now just a two person race.
I know Bita, and she has served as a judge and is presently a hearing master. I would think she is up for the task. I could be wrong, but I believe she would be hard-working and apply herself to learn the areas she is not too proficient at(and such effort is more than I can say for some of them, who think they are all-knowing simply because they get elected or appointed).
As for Villani, I only know of Mike Villani, and I certainly have an opinion on him(pretty decent judge), but I know nothing of Jacob Villani.
Never heard of him. But that doesn't mean he is not capable or qualified. Just saying I've been practicing over 30 years and never heard of him. What areas does he practice in? Is he a solid attorney? Is he judicial material?(which is sometimes a different question, with a different answer, than the question of whether someone is a solid attorney)
Some philosophical questions today: If OBC Hooge's mind fell out in a forest, would it make a sound? Would he notice? If Hooge were placed with a cat in a box and we looked at any given time, would he still be lacking experience? If Hooge traveled faster than the speed of light, could he outrun his tenure so far at the NSB? If Hooge sat at the entrance to a cave and saw a shadow of his experience … whoops, he doesn't have much. And nooooo I've never had discipline but I testified one time in a matter and I've never met one so apparently devoid of thought in such a powerful position. All just my opinion.
I think the lack of experience and vindictive ineptitude of the OBC is worthy of discussion (just as the draconian death march of Stan) was worthy of discussion. Rob Bare was no friend of those he pursued but fairly protected the integrity of the Bar. David Clark was a fair advocate although admittedly he got sideways with the Supremes over the speed of the docket. However ever since David's removal, the OBC is and remains a valid subject of discussion.
I'm not 1:16 or Hoge. Just a fellow blog visitor who enjoys some of the info shared on this blog. Sure, 3:23, it's a valid subject of discussion. 1:16 doesn't advance that discussion. I thought some of the discussion a couple months back about inconsistent suspension terms for similar conduct was great. Conversely, 1:16 is just a combination of wannabe comedy and whining. It's getting old without specifics of what he and OBC are doing wrong.
Also, 1:16 is just lame. You can tell he was so proud when he hit send.
I saw Coffing talk at a Bench/Bar meeting about a discipline "task force" that was appointed to review possible alternatives to the current system. I recall this was all based on some memo Coffing presented to BOG. Anyone know more about this?
Part of the problem with the current system is that it relies too heavily on the ABA standards which are very convoluted and so subjective that they undermine consistency. Also, suspension should be employed much less frequently. Something like 10% of the bar is currently suspended. Suspension is disruptive to current clients who must find new counsel and isn't a very effective deterrent because it's not applied consistently (see comment above). The system should also recognize the effect of any public discipline is enormous in the age of the internet. It allows no opportunity for a lawyer to grow and become better. The scarlet letter is there forever.
Part of the problem is that it relies upon Justice Hardesty who has done decades worth of damage to the disciplinary system in our state. Stan (as Bar Counsel) was a Hardesty creation and was tasked with basically scrapping 40 years of standards for disciplinary cases. The result was WIDELY disproportionate discipline that even Assistant Bar Counsel would look at you (either as a panel member or respondent) and say that they had no idea what the Supreme Court wanted on cases. This is why the OBC started trying to put together a Handbook for Panelists so that they have some clue what the comparable cases are but they are guessing.
Guest
Anonymous
January 30, 2020 9:34 pm
Congrats to Natalie Cox and welcome back to Las Vegas! She will be a wonderful judge.
Although I am glad that a third BK judge has been appointed, I was disappointed to hear that it was not Brian Shapiro. I do a lot of BK debtor work and think he would have made a great judge. We've butted heads on matters but they were ones that his position was well supported. Some I lost, some I won, but he's seemingly always treated debtors, and their counsel, fairly.
I could not agree more. I also am tired of the court reaching outside of the District (again) to bring in judges. Brian was more than ably qualified for the position. He has a better judicial temperament than Natalie. Enough of enough.
Yesterday was last day candidates could withdraw from the judicial races. The only last minute activity of possible note that I saw was Bruce Gale, with minutes to spare, withdrawing form Dept.I–leaving just Bita Yeager and Jacob(not Michael)Villani to fight it out.
Bruce Gale moved to a different department quite some time ago. See Dept 21.
So, Gale is out of races completely. I was laughing that Craig Friedberg is running for the 5th time.
11:17 is right that there was a last minute withdrawal in I, which leaves the race to Villani and Yeager. But as 11:46 notes, it was not Bruce Gale who withdrew at the last minute.
Looks like Stephen Smith was the one, and it is now just a two person race.
I know Bita, and she has served as a judge and is presently a hearing master. I would think she is up for the task. I could be wrong, but I believe she would be hard-working and apply herself to learn the areas she is not too proficient at(and such effort is more than I can say for some of them, who think they are all-knowing simply because they get elected or appointed).
As for Villani, I only know of Mike Villani, and I certainly have an opinion on him(pretty decent judge), but I know nothing of Jacob Villani.
Never heard of him. But that doesn't mean he is not capable or qualified. Just saying I've been practicing over 30 years and never heard of him. What areas does he practice in? Is he a solid attorney? Is he judicial material?(which is sometimes a different question, with a different answer, than the question of whether someone is a solid attorney)
He is a D.A.
Some philosophical questions today: If OBC Hooge's mind fell out in a forest, would it make a sound? Would he notice? If Hooge were placed with a cat in a box and we looked at any given time, would he still be lacking experience? If Hooge traveled faster than the speed of light, could he outrun his tenure so far at the NSB? If Hooge sat at the entrance to a cave and saw a shadow of his experience … whoops, he doesn't have much. And nooooo I've never had discipline but I testified one time in a matter and I've never met one so apparently devoid of thought in such a powerful position. All just my opinion.
Dude: Stop. Just stop. It's juvenile and tiresome.
I think the lack of experience and vindictive ineptitude of the OBC is worthy of discussion (just as the draconian death march of Stan) was worthy of discussion. Rob Bare was no friend of those he pursued but fairly protected the integrity of the Bar. David Clark was a fair advocate although admittedly he got sideways with the Supremes over the speed of the docket. However ever since David's removal, the OBC is and remains a valid subject of discussion.
I'm not 1:16 or Hoge. Just a fellow blog visitor who enjoys some of the info shared on this blog. Sure, 3:23, it's a valid subject of discussion. 1:16 doesn't advance that discussion. I thought some of the discussion a couple months back about inconsistent suspension terms for similar conduct was great. Conversely, 1:16 is just a combination of wannabe comedy and whining. It's getting old without specifics of what he and OBC are doing wrong.
Also, 1:16 is just lame. You can tell he was so proud when he hit send.
I saw Coffing talk at a Bench/Bar meeting about a discipline "task force" that was appointed to review possible alternatives to the current system. I recall this was all based on some memo Coffing presented to BOG. Anyone know more about this?
Part of the problem with the current system is that it relies too heavily on the ABA standards which are very convoluted and so subjective that they undermine consistency. Also, suspension should be employed much less frequently. Something like 10% of the bar is currently suspended. Suspension is disruptive to current clients who must find new counsel and isn't a very effective deterrent because it's not applied consistently (see comment above). The system should also recognize the effect of any public discipline is enormous in the age of the internet. It allows no opportunity for a lawyer to grow and become better. The scarlet letter is there forever.
Part of the problem is that it relies upon Justice Hardesty who has done decades worth of damage to the disciplinary system in our state. Stan (as Bar Counsel) was a Hardesty creation and was tasked with basically scrapping 40 years of standards for disciplinary cases. The result was WIDELY disproportionate discipline that even Assistant Bar Counsel would look at you (either as a panel member or respondent) and say that they had no idea what the Supreme Court wanted on cases. This is why the OBC started trying to put together a Handbook for Panelists so that they have some clue what the comparable cases are but they are guessing.
Congrats to Natalie Cox and welcome back to Las Vegas! She will be a wonderful judge.
She'll be great, and I'm also glad she's coming back.
Although I am glad that a third BK judge has been appointed, I was disappointed to hear that it was not Brian Shapiro. I do a lot of BK debtor work and think he would have made a great judge. We've butted heads on matters but they were ones that his position was well supported. Some I lost, some I won, but he's seemingly always treated debtors, and their counsel, fairly.
I could not agree more. I also am tired of the court reaching outside of the District (again) to bring in judges. Brian was more than ably qualified for the position. He has a better judicial temperament than Natalie. Enough of enough.