- Quickdraw McLaw
- 21 Comments
- 92 Views
- The housing authority decided one of its commissioners is ineligible to serve. [RJ]
- Parents of slain Las Vegas toddler sue foster care system. [RJ]
- Scott Gragson faces three new lawsuits with Robert Eglet representing the plaintiffs. [I-Team]
- Are drivers following the new HOV lane rules? [LasVegasNow]
- The Nevada Supreme Court will soon be hearing a case on the use of cash bail. [TNI]
Does anyone have any experience with lawsuits by deadbeat parents against DFS? Do they work? It seems odd that a parent (who in this case was high with the kid, which led to him being put into foster care in the first pace) can then claim some form of deprivation or damage. Didn't her actions put the child into danger in the first place, which led to the natural consequence of the child ending up in foster care? While there is no excuse for Dickens' actions, which led to the kids' death, didn't the mom's actions put her child in that position in the first place?
Anyone have any insight into these cases? Does DFS just settle because Dickens' actions were indefensible and DFS does not want to try this case to a jury?
I've had a few of those cases in the past. If the child is alive, normally the claim is brought on behalf of the kid, though the parent continues to exercise control (unless their rights are terminated). If the child dies as a result of the negligence/abuse, then the heirs and estate are entitled to recover just as in any other case.
But yes, realistically, if you have a shitty parent whose kids have been taken away, you factor that in when you talk settlement.
So Eglet is going to argue that Gragson was in course and scope with Colliers at the time of the collision in order to tap Colliers' presumably big insurance policies. He should get past SJ on that.
It's been a long time since I took the bar. I know that Nevada does not have dram shop liability; but is social host liability a thing here?
My quick reading of the complaint is that he is only arguing course and scope at this point since it was apparently a Colliers event, as opposed to any kind of independent liability on the part of Colliers.
So you think DFS is incompetent? My daughter was sexually molested as a toddler by a male family "friend". We took her to a doctor who called the police. She then went to the Sunrise Hospital Child Sexual Assault Unit for an examination. We were told DFS would contact us. DFS called my office and left message. I returned the call 25 times. I was told the DFS caseworker had a family emergency and was out of town. I asked for a supervisor. I was told I would just have to wait for the caseworker to return from her trip. I waited two weeks. Finally, the caseworker met with my family on a Sunday. When I finally talked to the caseworker, she spent several minutes insulting and berating me for letting such an event happen. When I asked her what investigation was taking place concerning the perpetrator, I was told to mind my own business. She told me she was closing the file, and would note that she had "warned" the parent. These people are in charge of protecting our children?
I am not defending DFS, because it sounds like your family was mistreated. However, it must be stated that YOU are responsible for protecting your children. Anyone that thinks DFS is going to protect their children is deluded. DFS is a bureaucratic, governmental entity that acts in loco parentis but is no substitute for real, loving, concerned parents. I would hope not one else has to go through what your family did, but we all know that the cycle will be repeated, because DFS staff are governmental employees, many of whom are just punching the clock and are overworked and underpaid.
Speaking of incompetence, let's not forget Secretary of State Barbara Cegavske!
Not only can I not do a business entity search, yesterday I was on hold for almost an hour trying to get a status on an employee's notary public application. The State of Nevada employee who finally answered the phone said that there was a "backlog" and they were up to applications submitted on or before July 10, 2019. She could not provide an update regarding our firm's application because "it would be somewhere in a box." I then asked her how I could get the application expedited. It was like pulling teeth to get any information out of her. She told me for an extra $75.00 we could have a 24 hour turn around. I asked her how to do that. She referred me to nvnotary@sos.nv.gov which turned out to be useless. She also told me we would need an "epayment check". In fact, to get expedited serve, go to novos-gov/sos/home and look for "business forms." Then go to "notary public" and then "credit card" and you can pay online with a credit card. Just trying to help because heavens knows, Barbara will not.
Totally agree with 10:31. The debacle at SOC is unheard of. It's DMV circa 1985 when I got my license. Just filed a complaint against a defendant without knowing the name of RA. The website has been inoperable forever. (Maybe it's been hijacked and Barbara refuses to pay the ransom? RUSSIANS!) Calls to SOS are impossible. For Pete's sake…..
So when does the State sue the contractor for breach? This is ridiculous.
Barbara is one of those small-town, wing-nut, eliminate almost all form of government type of conservatives. You think she really gives a shit what's going on here? She's loving this as it serves her agenda.
9:24AM – Seriously, go back and read what you wrote. Don't you see how wingnutty YOU sound?
Do you really think that any politician is going to purposefully do nothing when something like this breaks, just because it "eliminates government?"
Do you really believe that when the thing that breaks is a state service that actually helps private businesses?
Cegavske is a politician, and regardless of red or blue, this looks bad for her for reelection.
I could use some advice about how to get a co-defendant to shut the hell up? He just filed a brief that is full of lies and makes the rest of us look bad.
Contract / consulting lawyers vs. fee split
This is something that I admit I have never really understood in the ethics rules. When does the client have to agree in writing to a fee-split between attorneys per NRPC 1.5(e), and when (if ever?) is it OK to hire a contract attorney to work on a case without consent of the client?
I know it is a common practice for lawyers to hire other lawyers as contractors / consultants to work on a case, and that it is very uncommon for the client to consent in writing to this arrangement. Are all of these in violation of the rule, or is there some bar counsel opinion or exception?
My experience is that written consent is buried within the retainer agreement. Usually in very generic terms of the client consenting to the arrangement and that the total attorney fees to be paid will not be increased but rather any fees paid to the other attorney will come from the retained attorney's fee.
@11:39a – I do primarily civil litigation and probate litigation. There are times when I need to bring in another attorney that may have experience with a specific situation (dealing with specific business licensing issues, or having a bookkeeper go through the books and tell me if anything looks strange where I may need an expert). My retainer says that I must get client approval for non-attorney expenses that exceed $500.00 and that client agrees to pay those costs directly. It also says that I can retain contract counsel for specific items, other than being an attorney of record, and they consent to me doing it. If the attorney is going to go on record and actually represent the client at a hearing, they'd need client consent.
1:15,
I am your colleague, and likely frequent opposing counsel. I put my 1.5(e) clause in big, bold, capitalized letters that can't be missed. If we need to bring in co-counsel or an expert on a probate/trust litigation matter, I just have the client sign a separate retainer directly with co-counsel and/or the expert.
@11:39 "Contract / consulting lawyers vs. fee split"
Begin with the basic proposition that the client is hiring you, not your firm, but you because you are the greatest lawyer in the world and only you can adequately represent the client. A personal service contract like hiring Paul McCartney instead of any singer/musician.
If you are going to sub out your work to someone else who may be less talented, the client should know that at the time the representation agreement. Usually something like "work may be performed by other firm attorneys" is sufficient.
Thank you all for your responses. I wholeheartedly agree with 5:07's sentiment. This is a situation like 1:15 describes where the general subject matter is well within my expertise, but there are one or two issues tangential to the case, yet important, where I want to contract with another attorney who is very experienced in those particular issues.
This is really more of a consult with the other attorney to make sure I'm dotting all the i's; the contract attorney would not appear as counsel of record.
In the meantime it looks like I need to update my retainer agreement.
My retainer agreement provides for me to use other attorneys as needed. I sometimes need to hire co-counsel with more experience than I have in certain areas, but most often, I am hiring an appearance attorney for a warm-body hearing. I have the new client initial the clause in the retainer agreement about my hiring co-counsel.
I will not proceed with a new case without this consent, because I practice in both CA and NV, and I don't want to have to run from one state to the other (roughly ten hours round-trip) for a status hearing.
I practice in both states as well, and I really wish using appearance attorneys was more common in Nevada. It would make my life a lot easier.
Based on experience with State Bar discipline, I've found it frequently buried in the 'costs' section of the retainer agreement. Although in truth I believe that quite often the client does not understand the scope of those costs would entail his lawyer, hiring a lawyer do hourly legal work.